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 02.09.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1992, 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 Hansaben informed Mandvi Police Station (District Surat), on 10.1.1992, alleging that the marriage of his daughter (victim) was solemnized with respondent No.1 – original accused No.1 before about 9 years from the date of incident and out of their wedlock the victim has given birth of two daughters, aged 6 years and 1 year respectively. It is alleged that the complainant received information that his daughter (victim) had gone somewhere along with her two daughters on 7.1.1992 after 4.00 O'clock in the evening and not traceable. Thereafter, on 11.1.1992 the dead body of victim Hansaben and her daughter Chitti was found and, therefore, on 14.1.1992 the complainant lodged his complaint (Exh. 25) before P.S.I., Mandvi. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 (husband of victim) was having illicit relation with one girl Anita of the same village and, therefore, quarrel was taking place and the accused No.1 used to beat the victim and telling that she should go to her parental home with daughters as he wanted to marry with Anita and thereby he was giving mental and physical torture to the victim. Therefore, due to mental and physical torture, the victim has committed suicide with her daughter by jumping herself in the canal. Thereafter, during recording of the statements of witnesses, the involvement of the accused No.2 to 6 came out and, therefore, the names of the respondents No.2 to 6 were added in the commission of offence and the offences under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of I.P. Code was registered against the respondents – accused.
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 the accused No.1 was having illicit relation with one girl Anita of the same village and, therefore, accused No.1 was giving mental and physical torture to the deceased and was frequently beating the victim and due to physical and mental torture the deceased, along with daughter, 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. I have also heard learned Advocate Mr. N.M. Kapadia, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused. Learned Advocate Mr. Kapadia has contended that to prove the conduct of the respondents – accused, the prosecution has to prove the main ingredients of Sections 107 & 108 of I.P. Code beyond reasonable doubt. Looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence, produced on the record, it is clearly established that the prosecution has failed to prove the conduct of the respondents – accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Judge has not committed any illegality or error in not believing the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no interference may be called for. 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 witnesses and the same is proved through the oral evidence of Investigating Officer. From the oral evidence of the complainant, it clearly appears that he had not seen the dead body of victim Hansa. The complainant was also not sure as to whether the dead body which was found out was of the victim or it was a dead body of other woman. He had also admitted in his cross examination that the respondents and others were also searching for the deceased. Other prosecution witnesses are also not sure as to whether the dead body found out was of the victim Hansa. From the deposition of witness Rajesh (cousin of the victim) it appears that he had gone to take lunch at 12.00 hours at the house of victim Hansa and at that time victim had informed him that she was mentally and physically ill-treated by her husband and asked her to go to parental house with her daughters and beating her, but, as Rajesh was not having vehicle at that time and, therefore, he did not take victim with him. But, this witness has not informed anybody about the alleged conversation with the victim. It has also come in evidence of this witness Rajesh that accused No.1 was working in his factory and doing the diamond cutting work and earning good income. It has also come in evidence often the accused No.1 was visiting the place of the complainant as per the caste custom. The learned Judge has rightly observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence as to whether the dead body, which was found out, was of the victim. The learned Judge has also observed that from the evidence produced on the record, the prosecution could not be able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Looking to the evidence produced on the record, the motive is also not established against the respondents – accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can come in the way of the respondents – 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 02.09.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 93 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.) sas