1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 9.2.1996 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.70 of 1994. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 306, 498 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, Rekhaben committed suicide due to harassment and cruelty meted out to her. The accused No.1 was insisting upon her to cook food only for himself and if anything remains she can eat. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were taunting the deceased. On the previous day of the incident at night time the accused persons had beaten the deceased and therefore, she had gone to sleep without any food. Due to mental and physical harassment on 15.8.1994 Rekhaben setherself ablaze by pouring kerosene over herself. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.2.1996 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.70 of 1994, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Learned APP Ms.Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
10. She has contended that learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of Head Constable at Ex.29 who recorded the complaint of deceased. The learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of Executive Magistrate – Hasmukhbhai P. Modi at Ex.9 who has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex.11.
11. She has contended that the learned Judge has committed error in observing that deceased Rekha was not in a fit state of mind when the dying declaration was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. She has contended that the learned Judge has erred in observing that there is a difference between the evidence of Executive Magistrate and Dr.Ashaben about the consciousness of the deceased when the dying declaration was recorded by the learned Magistrate.
12. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that merely because of two main witnesses the accused had entered into compromise and therefore, they have not supported the case of the prosecution but that fact cannot come in the way when the two dying declarations of the deceased clearly state that she was given physical and mental torture by the respondents – accused. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
13. Notice is served to the other side. No one is present on behalf of the respondents – accused.
14. Heard learned advocate for the appellant. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. It is true that prosecution has examined sufficient witnesses in support of the prosecution case and also produced documentary evidence. I have perused postmortem note Ex.40 at column No.17. There are material contradictions in the version of the witnesses and therefore, learned Judge has rightly observed that due to contradiction in the version of the witnesses some doubt has occurred. The learned Judge has rightly observed that dying declaration Ex.11 is not reliable and acceptable and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:
“16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below.
However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.”
16. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
17. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite 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 as well as 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.
18. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.2.1996 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.70 of 1994, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks