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 29.06.1996 passed by learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Banas Kantha at Palanpur, in Sessions Case No. 109 of 1995, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges alleged against them. Against the said Judgment, the appellant – State has filed present Appeal against respondents – original accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant - father of the victim has lodged his complaint before Deesa (Rural) Police Station, on 23.4.1995 at 13.40 hours, alleging that the respondent No.1 – original accused No.1 is the husband of victim and the respondents No.2 & 3 – original accused Nos.2 & 3 are the elder brothers of the accused No.1. It is alleged in the complaint that all the accused were giving physical as well as mental torture to the victim and that they were not properly providing the food and clothes and were not keeping her daughter properly. Therefore, the victim has committed suicide by jumping herself in the well. The complainant has stated in his complaint that Sarpanch Chelaji had come to his house at previous night, i.e. prior to the date of filing of the complainant, and informed him that his daughter (victim) has committed suicide by jumping herself in the well which is lying in their field. Thereupon, the complainant along with his relatives had gone to village Odhva where he found that the dead body of the victim was lying in the well. Thereafter, the complainant had prepared the complaint, through Advocate, and filed the complaint on 23.4.1995 at 13.40 hours before the Head Constable Govindbhai Manjibhai, at Deesa (Rural) Police Station. Thereupon the F.I.R. was registered and the offence under Section 498-A, 306, 114 I.P. Code was registered against the accused and investigation was handed over to P.S.I.
3. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and the 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 Magistrate. As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has 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 the documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statement 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 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondents– accused from the charges alleged 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. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties 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 appreciating the facts and evidence on the record. He has read the charge and the oral evidence of the witnesses and contended that from the oral as well as the documentary evidence it is clearly established that due to physical and mental torture the deceased had committed suicide and, therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and without considering the evidence produced on the record, the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges alleged against them. He has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the deceased has committed suicide at the instance of respondents – accused. He has also read the provision of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and contended that the presumption is also required to be drawn against the present respondents – accused. He has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, prima- facie, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has committed grave error of acquitting the respondents from the charges alleged against them. He, 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. Other side is served, but, no body has appeared on behalf of the respondent – accused. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial court and also perused the papers produced before me.
9. From the observation of the trial Court it appears that there are material contradictions in the deposition of prosecution witness Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and the same is proved through the oral evidence of Investigating Officer. It appears that the prosecution witnesses have narrated different story before the Court than what they have stated in their statements before the Police. It also appears that immediately after the incident the complainant did not approach before the Police station for lodging his complaint, but, on the next day he contacted one lawyer, who has drafted the complaint and thereafter the same was typed and then the same was given to the Police station on 23.4.1995 at 13.40 hours. The witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are related to each other and the prosecution has not examined the independent witnesses to support its case. It clearly appears that the complainant and other witnesses are illiterate coming from the village. On one hand, it is stated that after birth of baby (female) child, through the accused No.1, the deceased stayed for about 6 months at her parental home, but, during this time she did not complain about the mental and physical harassment by the accused. From the record, it appears that the accused were staying in a joint family and the deceased wanted to stay with her husband separately, but, the accused No.1 told her that after four days they will reside separately and, therefore, the deceased got excited and committed suicide by jumping herself in the well. The learned Judge has rightly observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that due to physical and mental harassment the deceased has committed suicide. Looking to the evidence produced on the record, the motive is also not established against the respondent – accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can come in the way of the respondent – accused, but, to consider the same, the prosecution has not produced any material evidence on the record. The learned Judge has categorically observed that the prosecution could not be able to produce any evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Judge has observed that looking to the evidence, produced on the record, the abatement, instigation and provocation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot be considered that due to the instigation, provocation and abatement the deceased has committed suicide. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly considered all the aspect of the matter and, after properly appreciating the evidence, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 respondent – 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 29.06.1996 passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Banas Kantha at Palanpur, in Sessions Case No. 109 of 1995, 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.) sas