1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham at in Sessions Case No.9 of 1999, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
2. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that the deceased Nanbai married with accused No.1 and as per the case of the complainant, the accused No.1 – husband, accused No.2 motherinlaw and accused No.3 fatherinlaw of the deceased and they were mentally and physically harassed the deceased. Therefore, the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set her at fire. Therefore, the offence under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 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, respondents were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against them before the Court of learned 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.9 of 1999. The trial was initiated against the respondents accused.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 14 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
4. 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 respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 30.9.1999.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
6. 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 submitted that the evidence of Mahendrakumar Shantilal Shah examined at Exhibit 19, who recorded dying declaration at Exhibit 20 and from the evidence of this witness, the case against the accused is proved. He further stated that from the evidence of Dr. Jivan Karsandas Patel at Exhibit 23, it appears that the deceased received 100% burn injuries and while the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded, she was in conscious position and she was able to reply properly. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution regarding the harassment caused by the accused and as a result of it, the deceased committed suicide. He further stated that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of Anwarsha Diwan at Exhibit 34, dying declaration recorded by Somdatta Police Head Constable, who obtained thumb impression of the deceased. He further stated that looking to the dying declaration recorded at Exhibit 20 and statements recorded at Exhibit 36 of the deceased, which indicate that there was physical and mental cruelty adduced by the respondent – accused and as a result of it she committed suicide. He prayed to allow this Appeal by quashing and setting the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court.
7. 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. In this case, there are two dying declaration, one was recorded by the Executive Magistrate at Exhibit 20 and another was by the Head Constable at Exhibit 36. The trial Court rightly observed about dying declaration at Exhibit 20 that some contents were printed before taking signature or thumb impression of the deceased. Said witness during the course of examination, had not explained properly about the reason of death of deceased and as per the provisions of Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the contents stated in dying declaration are not proved. The trial Court therefore, observed the same as doubt in right manner. Looking to the statement recorded at Exhibit 36, in the form of the complaint and thereafter, the complaint of the complainant was registered. The Head Constable, who recorded the complaint, was not examined during the trial. Therefore, looking to the record, the trial Court has rightly observed that the document at Exhibit 20 and 36 were created after second thought, at later stage, after filing of the complaint. Even from the other evidence of the witnesses and documentary evidence, the alleged offence is not proved against the accused, as there are no corroboration between the evidence led before the trial Court. Even it is doubtful that at the time of recording statement or dying declaration of the deceased, the deceased was in a position to give statement before death. Therefore, I am in complete agreement with the findings assigned by the trial Court and trial Court rightly acquitted the accused of the charges.
8. 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. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused made story about illicit relationship between the deceased and Bachubhai and thereby spoiled the image of the deceased. Looking to the overall circumstances, it is not established that the accused made such rumour about illicit relationship of the deceased with Bachubhai and there is no direct evidence against the accused, which links the accused in the commission of the offence.
9. 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.”
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) ynvyas