1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 3.6.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Sessions Case No.212 of 1996. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 26.5.1996 at about 17:30 hours Savitaben w/o Narendrabhai @ Mahendrabhai Babuji committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and ablaze due to cruelty and harassment meted out to her by the accused persons. 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 3.6.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Sessions Case No.212 of 1996, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, 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.
She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the deposition of complainant at Ex.15, wherein he has clearly disclosed the fact that deceased Savita was subjected to cruelty by the respondents – accused under one or another reasons. He has also deposed that he has given Rs.10,000/ for purchase of rikshaw and accused persons were demanding dowry often and often, as such by way of deposition of complainant it is crystal clear that she has committed suicide due to subjected cruelty by the respondents – accused.
10. She has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of Parulben at Ex.16, she has also supported the complaint of the complainant that she was subjected to cruelty by the respondents accused. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the deposition of Shankarji Merji, he has also fully supported the prosecution case. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the 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.
11. Notice is served to the other side but no one is present on behalf of the respondent – accused.
12. Heard learned APP for the appellant. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. From the papers it appears that the prosecution has primafacie failed to prove that deceased was given mental and physical harassment and due to provocation and instigation she committed suicide. The brother of the deceased has not stated in the deposition that deceased was meted out with cruelty and harassment by the respondents – accused. It is clear from his deposition that due to excitement deceased committed suicide.
13. 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 reappreciate 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.”
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 3.6.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Sessions Case No.212 of 1996, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks