[1] The present Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 12.11.1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 161 of 1990, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents - original accused from the charges alleged against them.
[2] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of Bhagvanti, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with , respondent No.1 (original accused No.1) before about 3 years from the date of incident and after marriage, they were residing together. It is alleged that after marriage, the accused No.1 and his parents used to torture her for not giving the ornaments by the father of the deceased Bhagvanti and on that pretext, the in-laws were harassing her mentally and physically. On the date of incident i.e. on 07.02.1990 at about 8 p.m., the accused No.1 and deceased Bhagvanti had gone to the house of the father of the deceased and they had taken meals and thereafter accused No.1 and his brother-in-law Vijaybhai both had gone to see movie in the last show while Bhagvanti remained in the house which consisted of one room. After seeing the movie, at about 12, the accused No.1 and his brother-in-law came back at they had gone to sleep in the house but Vijaybhai had gone to sleep elsewhere as there was no space in the room. The father of Bhagvanti had also gone to sleep elsewhere in a lorry but during the night time at about 2.00 a.m., accused No.1 had approached his father-in-law Kaluram Vardhichand Jain who was sleeping outside on the lorry and told him that Bhagvati is is not well and is vomiting and so Kaluram Vardhichand Jain, the father of Bhagvanti and the father-in-law of accused No.1 had called one doctor from Nedia but he told him to shift Bhagvati in Hospital, Nr. Police Commissioner's Office, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad and Bhagvanti was taken to the said Hospital in Shahibaug where she was declared dead. Thereafter, accused No.1 had gone to his house and Kaluram Vardhichand Jain suspected about suicide by his daughter because of mental and physical harassment from her in-laws. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 of I.P. Code before the Madhupura Police Station.
[3] Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents - accused in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Thereafter, as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents - accused. The respondents - accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
[4] To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and relied upon certain documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the respondents - accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, acquitted the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them.
[5] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.
[6] Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant - State of Gujarat. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
[7] Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is without considering the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that the learned Judge has not appreciated the fact that the deceased expired due to consuming poisonous substance, as per the reports of the viscera Ex.14. She has contended that the learned Judge has not considered the fact that the plastic bag containing poisonous powder was found on the iron rack at the place of incident. She has also contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the postmortem note Ex.17 discloses that there was no external injuries on the body of the deceased, but both the lungs were congested and stomach containing 200 c.c. Whitest water fluid with white coloured semi solid plaques. She has contended that looking to the evidence of Kaluram, Vijay and Bansilal, there was harassment to the deceased Bhagvanti as the respondents were demanding ornaments and also demanding Rs.10,000/- for business purpose. She has contended that there was sufficient evidence on record before the trial Court to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the respondents ought to have been convicted for the offences with which they were charged. She has read the oral evidence of Kaluram Vardhichand Jain, the complainant has contended that this is material witness of the prosecution and from this evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that no doubt some contradiction is proved through oral version of Investigating Officer, but looking to minor contradiction, the case of the prosecution cannot be held to be fatal. She has contended that the delay is also disclosed in filing the complaint. She has contended that the main ingredients of Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence act is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Judge has not considered and has wrongly observed that there was no strange relation with the deceased and there was no cause to commit the suicide. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses it clearly appears that due to the harassment by the husband and in-laws, the deceased Bhagvanti had consumed poison to commit suicide. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that due to mental and physical torture from the husband and other family members, the deceased committed suicide. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. She, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
[8] Respondents are duly served, but, they have not remained present. I have gone through the papers produced before me as also the Judgment of the Court below. I have also considered the oral as well as documentary produced on record. From the deposition of witnesses it appears that the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and though they are related to the deceased, not a single witness has deposed anything about the conduct or mis-behaviour of the accused with the deceased. From their depositions the prosecution could not be able to prove that due to physical and mental cruelty the deceased committed suicide. I have also gone through the main ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.Code, which reads as under :
"498-A
- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine -
[Explanation
- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means
-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand] [9] Cruelty must be proved through direct evidence of witnesses. In the present case, from the oral evidence of witnesses, the prosecution could not prove that due to the conduct and harassment by the accused the deceased has committed suicide. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. Looking to the evidence of complainant - Kaluram, P.W.2, who examined at Ex.14, in his cross-examination, admitted that after he had seen the deadbody of Bhagvanti at about 4.00 p.m he called relatives and after consulting the relatives he found it fit to file complaint at police station as he felt that somebody might doubt him in this case and he had gone to file complaint at about 8 a.m on the next day i.e. on 08.02.1990 but it seems that the timings given by the complainant is not correct as the complaint was lodged at about 11.30 a.m i.e. after about 9 hours from the occurring of the incident as deceased expired at 2.00 a.m on 08.02.1990. From the evidence of P.W.2, it appears that there was a delay in filing the complaint which creates some doubt. It also appears from the panchnama of the place of offence that a plastic bag containing poisonous powder being found in the house of complainant Kaluram when deceased Bhagvanti was in the room on the night of the incident. It is also now required to be noted that the Investigating Officer has not cared to investigate as to how the plastic bag containing poisonous powder was inside the room of the complainant and who had brought it and for what purpose. There is another plastic bag containing poisonous powder which was not broken while one plastic small bag containing 25 Grams of powder was broken from corner. It is true that the deceased Bhagvanti might have taken poisonous powder from the broken plastic bag which caused her death. It also appears from the papers that how Bhagvanti has taken poisonous powder which was in the room of the complainant. It is also not the case of the prosecution that who brought the plastic poisonous powder and when it was found inside the house of the complainant and even no direct evidence is produced on record to show that the respondents have brought poisonous powder. It is also required to be noted that the relation between accused No.1 and the deceased Bhagvanti is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence as to whether there was any exchange of words or any harassment with the deceased on the night of the incident. On the contrary, prosecution evidence suggests that deceased and accused No.1 had gone at the place of the complainant and had taken meals and were chit chatting till they departed for seeing movie with his brother-in-law. It is presumed that they were happy and till accused No.1 departed to see the movie with bis brother-in-law. The learned Judge has considered that something must have happened during the talk by the complainant with the deceased after accused No.1 left for seeing movie or there must be something which had happened which prompted deceased to commit suicide. It is nobody's case that deceased was murdered by giving poisonous substance by somebody but the prosecution has put the case that due to harassment regarding ornaments and demand of money for the business purpose which led the deceased to commit suicide. Looking to the evidence of witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution, are the family members of the deceased. Looking the place of the offence and contents of panchnama, it appears that the prosecution did not examine any independent witness during the trial. From the evidence, it is not established that the accused had instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Even the ingredients under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted to the case of the accused. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. Therefore, it appears that the accused have been falsely involved in the case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of prosecution. In my opinion, therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is proper and no interference is called for.
[10] It is settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents - accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed.
[11] In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 12.11.1993 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 161 of 1990 is hereby confirmed. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
[ Z. K. SAIYED, J. ] vijay Top