1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.8.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda camp at Anand, in Sessions Case No.65 of 1994, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
2. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that the accused person caused mental and physical harassment to the deceased and the accused had beaten the deceased. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide by jumping herself into the well and died. It is alleged that the accused misbehaved with the deceased and, therefore, the attitude on the part of the accused, resulted into committing suicide. 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.65 of 1994. The trial was initiated against the respondents accused.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 7 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 27.8.1999.
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. He further submitted that the the deceased committed suicide within the span of three years of marriage life. He further submitted that on receipt of the letter of deceased, when the complainant and prosecution witnesses came to the house of accused persons and the accused persons were behaving just like nothing has happened or they were not knowing about the facts and therefore, the conduct of the accused is required to be considered. He further submitted that the prosecution witnesses clearly deposed about the harassment and cruelty on the part of the accused persons, but the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the same and acquitted the accused of the charges. Even the deceased was having permanency at the time of incident. Looking to the P.M. report at Exhibit 17 and oral evidence of Dr. Trivedi at Exhibit 39, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was unnatural death. He read the evidence of the complainant, brother of the deceased, Maniben, mother of the deceased, Rajvibhai, Ratilal Muljibhai, Mehbubkhan, Head Constable, I.O. Mr. P.R. Bhatt and Dr. Mayur Motilal and submitted that from the evidence of this witnesses, the alleged offence were proved against the accused. He submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing this Appeal and the accused may be awarded sentence.
7. As against, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi for the respondents submitted that the learned after considering and appreciating the evidence on record, in true manner, acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them and the prosecution has absolutely failed to prove the case against the accused. Therefore, no interference is required to called for from this Court. He prays to dismiss the appeal.
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. Looking to the evidence recored before the trial Court, it appears that there is not a single evidence, which shows that the accused caused mental or physical harassment to the deceased. The prosecution even also failed to prove that the accused had demanded any dowry from the deceased and for the same, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The ingredients of Section 498(A) and 306 are not established against the accused. There is no role on the part of the accused in connection of the commission of suicide by the deceased. The allegation of dowry is not reflected even from the complaint and the demand regarding dowry on the part of the accused is not established through the documentary as well as oral evidence. The mother of the deceased has not stated in her evidence about the harassment on the part of the accused to her daughter, when the deceased visited her parental house. The evidence of Ravjibhai has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the aspects like abetment, instigation or provocation on the part of the accused are not proved or the say of the complainant or other witnesses, that the accused had compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused after appreciating the evidence on record.
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.)