1. Though served, but no one is appearing on behalf of the respondent. Today, the Appeal is taken up for hearing.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.1.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No.68 of 1989, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
3. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that on 15.7.1989 at about 12:30 p.m., the daughter of the complainant namely Ansuyaben was kidnapped by the accused from the lawful custody of her father. The said Ansuyaben was forcefully taken by the accused against her will and without consent of her guardian in order to marry her. Therefore, the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against him before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.68 of 1989. The trial was initiated against the respondent accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 7 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
5. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 20.1.1992.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She further submitted that the victim Ansuyaben was minor at that time and her birth date is 1.12.1971 and therefore, in the case of minor, there is no question of will or consent and therefore, it can be said that the accused committed the offence alleged against him. That fact came to know by the accused and therefore, the victim was sent back to her parents home as accused was not in a position to marry her as she was minor. The accused confined the victim for three days after abducting her. She further submitted that the accused told the victim that her mother got burn injuries and on that ground, she was taken in rickshaw by the accused. She further submitted that the ingredients of the offence as alleged against the accused are established, but the learned trial Judge not considered the same while passing the order of acquittal. Therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.1.1992 passed in Sessions Case No.68 of 1989 is required to be quashed and set aside and the accused is required to be awarded sentence by passing the order of conviction.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. I have perused the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the trial Court. From the record, it appears that there are sevarl contradictions between the evidence of Ansuyaben and her statement before the Police. From the record, it appears that the victim was on her own run away with the accused. It also appears that the accused was residing near the house of the victim and therefore, it is possible that at that time, between the victim and accused, there was love affair and therefore, both had run away for getting married, but due to not attained the marriageable age, the accused sent her back to her parental home. Even from the other evidence, it is not established that the accused abducted the victim, but it appears that the victim on herself run away with the accused. I have perused the birth date certificate of the victim and it appears that at the time of incident, around 5 months were remained to get 18 years of age and in that connection, the trial Court has discussed in detail. It is clear case of consent. Therefore, the offence alleged against the accused person is not proved and therefore, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused.
9. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellantState. Thus, from the evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
11. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
12. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against her.
13. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
14. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K. SAIYED, J.)