1. The present Appeal, under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 13.04.2000 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1999, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the charges alleged against him. 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 marriage of victim Neetaben, the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with the accused on 18.5.1998 i.e. prior to the date of incident. The accused – respondent and the deceased were staying at Keshod. It is alleged that the deceased was used to meet her relatives at Keshod which was not liked by the accused. It is also alleged that the accused was doubting about the character of the deceased and, therefore, the deceased was harassed by the respondent – accused. It is alleged that because of this mental torture the deceased had swallowed poisonous tablets and committed suicide. Therefore, the father of the deceased lodged complaint before Keshod Police Station against the accused – respondent for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P. Code which was registered as CR No. 186 of 1998.
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 Assistant Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges alleged against him.
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. She has read the charge and the oral evidence of the witnesses. She has contended that the marital life of the deceased with the respondent was only for 2 months and it clearly appears that due to mental harassment by the accused, the deceased was compel to commit suicide. She has contended that the evidence of witness examined by the defence is also not reliable as the said witness is having enmity with the complainant and the deceased. She has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the deceased has committed suicide at the instance of respondent – accused and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed grave error in not believing the case of the prosecution. She has also read the provision of Evidence Act and contended that the presumption is also required to be drawn against the present respondent – accused. She 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 accused from the charges alleged against him. She, 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. Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused, has supported the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge. She has contended that looking to the facts of the case and the oral as well as the documentary evidence, produced on the record, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and, therefore, no interference may be called for by this Court.
9. From the observation of the trial Court it appears that there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. It appears that though the complainant, father of the deceased is a teacher and her brother is an Advocate, they have not produced any material fact regarding harassment or the cruelty imposed by the respondent – accused to the deceased. No doubt the marriage span of the accused with the deceased was only 2 months, but, when it is not established through the oral as well as documentary evidence that due to mental harassment the deceased has committed suicide then, in my opinion, the prosecution has failed to established its case beyond reasonable doubt. From the opinion of medical expert it is established that due to consumption of poisonous medicine, the victim has died, but, for what reason the deceased had consumed poisonous medicine is not established by the prosecution. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act can come in the way of the respondent – accused, but, to consider the presumption also the 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 13.04.2000 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1999, 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