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 28.08.1992 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1992, 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 Jayshree daughter of Bhagwatiben, a widow residing at Bombay with her children was married to Ashish Mehta, the son of Parasarbhai Mehta residing at Flat No.6 of Divya Jiven Flats situated at Kochrab in the city of Ahmedabd in the year 1988. They had one son aged about one and half years. On account of the fact that Bhagwatiben was residing at Bombay and that she was widow, her brother Indravadan Ambalal Raval, the complainant of the case as well as Bhagwatiben's sister and brother-in-law who were residing at Ahmedabad were taking care of Jayshree at Ahmedabad. Jayshree used to pay visits to them from time to time. It is alleged in the complaint that after sometime, the husband and other family members had given mental and physical harassment and taunting Jayshree by saying that she belonged to poor family and had not brought anything with her and in-laws were demanded cash, ornaments, scooter etc., and complained her maternal uncle - Indravadan Ambalal Raval to arrange for money. Therefore, Jayshree, by strangulating herself, had committed suicide. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 of I.P. Code and under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before Ellisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad.
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, has 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. Mr.L. B. Dabhi, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.
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. He 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 Jayshree had committed suicide, by strangulating herself. He has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that due to mental and physical torture and demand of dowry from the husband and other family members, the deceased had complained her maternal uncle about the physical and mental harassment and demand of dowry. The learned APP has also drawn the attention of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and contended that from the deposition of witnesses it clearly appears that there was mental harassment on the part of the accused and they were taunting her by saying that “she had not brought anything from her parental home. He has also read the medical evidence as also the Post Mortem Report and contended that the death was caused due to strangulating. He has contended that deceased had committed suicide due to mental, physical harassment and taunting her by saying that she had not brought anything from her parental home and also demanded dowry. He has submitted that as per the evidence of Bhagwatiben it is established by the prosecution that after delivery, the health of the Jayshree was not good and when Jayshree visited Bombay, Bhagwatiben had asked her why she was not looking happy and at that time, the deceased told her about the torture and thereafter the deceased committed suicide. From the record of the case, it appears that due to strain relation between the accused No.1 and the deceased, the deceased set herself at fire and it is not at all established that the accused No.1 or other accused persons instigated her to commit suicide. She has contended that the aspects of instigation or provocation or abetment on the part of the accused are established against the accused persons and therefore, the prosecution has proved the case against the accused persons. Even the ingredients under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted to the case of the accused. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. He 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. He has contended and argued that as per the evidence of the prosecution, even the provisions of Section 113 of the Evidence Act, presumption is also proved through oral as well as documentary evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 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. 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. The learned Judge, in his Judgment in Paras – 15 and 16 has observed as under :-
“15. In view of the fact that such act of suicide was committed by the deceased on 26.09.1991 which falls within the period of seven years from 31.12.1988 when the marriage took place, it becomes necessary for us to consider whether the provision as contemplated by section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act could be taken. The said provisions of the Evidence act is reproduced below.
“Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
113-A. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”
16. From the careful perusal of the above provision of the Indian Evidence Act, it becomes incumbent upon us to find out whether accused No.1 as the husband of the deceased Jayshree or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty and secondly whether such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband having regard to all other circumstances of the case. The third requirement is whether it is shown that the wife committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. However, we have already come to a conclusion that there is no constraint on recording a finding to the effect that Jayshree had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. Therefore, two aspects required to be minutely considered by us are whether she was subjected to cruelty and whether having regard to all other circumstances of the case a presumption could be raised whether such suicide had been abetted by the three accused persons before us. The “cruelty” has to be given the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal code.”
The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was harassed by the accused. There are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. No independent witnesses have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. Learned Judge has also observed that since the prosecution concentrated its attention on presumption to be drawn on the basis of section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, it obviously did not make any attempt to prove the direct involvement of the accused in abetting the act of suicide having been committed by Jayshree. Even the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to support of its case, the learned Judge has considered that the prosecution has failed to prove the main ingredients of sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the aspects of instigation or provocation or any kind of abetment on the part of the accused are not established against the accused persons and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons. Looking to all the evidence examined before the trial Court, the aspect of instigation or provocation are not established which resulted to commit suicide by the deceased. 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 28.08.1992 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 3 of 1992 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