1. Though served, but nobody is appeared on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing on today.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.11.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.11 of 1994, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
3.1 The deceased Rasilaben married with accused No.4 Madhubhai Popatbhai and thereafter, they lived as husband and wife. The accused No.1 is motherinlaw, accused No.2 is sisterinlaw (Jethani) and accused No.3 is brotherinlaw (Jeth) of the deceased. The accused persons were giving mental torture to the deceased Rasilaben and sometime, they were beating the deceased. Therefore, as a last resort, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and ablazed herself.
3.2 Therefore, a complaint with respect to the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the accused. 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 him before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 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.11 of 1994. The trial was initiated against the respondents accused.
3.3 To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 6 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
3.4 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 10.11.1995 .
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
5. 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. Learned APP Ms. Punani for the appellant – State read the charge at Exhibit 1 and submitted that the from the charges levelled against the accused, the case is proved against the accused by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. She also submitted that from the bare reading of the complaint, it is proved that due to instigation or provocation on the part of the accused, the deceased committed suicide. She submitted that from the oral evidence of P.W.1 – Dhirubhai, complainant, it is reflected that the quarrel took placed between the deceased and accused persons and they were causing physical and mental harassment to the deceased. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide. She also submitted that from other evidence recorded before the trial Court, it is established that the accused played material role in the commission of the offence and therefore, deceased committed suicide. Even from the evidence of medical expert examined at Exhibit 17, it is come out that the deceased committed suicide by setting her on fire and thereby she received burn injuries. She also submitted that whenever the deceased came to the house of her parents, she was complaining about harassment caused by the accused. As per her submission, the learned trial Judge without appreciating the evidence on record, wrongly acquitted the accused persons and therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present Appeal.
6. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. First of all, the complaint which was lodged after 3 days from the incident, which creates doubt about allegations made by the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant did not state the material facts and same is admitted by him in his oral evidence. There are contradictions between the evidence of witnesses and contents of the complaint as well as statements. The complainant admitted in his evidence that nothing about harassment was told by the deceased. As per the evidence of Kailashben, the deceased wrote a letter to her about harassment caused by the accused persons, but same was not produced by her during the course of trial. The deceased was admitted at Lathi Hospital, after getting burn injuries and at that time, at the hospital, the complainant did not give complaint to the police, though the police was present at the said hospital. Said Dhirubhai had never visited the matrimonial house of the deceased. Therefore, the offence alleged against the accused persons is not proved and therefore, learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused.
7. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
[3] Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
[4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”
8. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
9. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
10. 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.
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 respondents of the charges leveled against them.
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.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) ynvyas