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 05.03.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), , in Sessions Case No. 87 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 marriage of the daughter (victim) of the complainant was solemnized with the son of respondents No.1 & 2 and brother of respondent No.3 (original accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively) before 2-1/2 years from the date of filing of complaint. After marriage, the daughter (victim) of the complainant, when came to the house of the complainant at that time she was complaining about the ill-treatment and harassment caused by her in-law's and sister in law. It is alleged that before about 6 months prior to the incident, the complainant received bogus telegraph in which it was stated that “Durga” (daughter of the complainant – victim) has expired and, therefore, the complainant and other rushed to the place of the accused and found that the victim was alive. Thereafter, as the victim was pregnant, she was taken to the house of the complainant for delivery. Thereafter, after delivery, the accused and others came to the place of the complainant to call the victim and at that time, the complainant asked the accused to come with four independent persons from their caste and take the victim. Therefore, at the responsibility of relatives Kalubhai Gandabhai, Ramjibhai and other two persons, they were taken Durga to their house. Thereafter, on 4.2.1992, on receiving the message from Narsinhbhai, the complainant, along with Kalubhai, brother in law of Bhikhabhai, went to the place of in-laws of the victim, where they have complained that victim is not preparing the food properly and household work is also not done by her properly. The complainant thereupon asked them to send victim with her at his house, however, they were not agreed to send the victim with the complainant. It is alleged that on 23.2.1992 the complainant received message that Durga (victim) has burnt and, therefore, on the next day the complainant, along with his relatives, went to Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar, where he found that Durga has burnt. On being asked, the victim has replied that due to harassment from her in-laws and sister-in- law, she herself has poured kerosene on her and burnt in the bathroom. During the treatment, on 25.2.1992 at 22.30 hours, the victim has expired. Therefore, the complainant has lodged complaint before Gandhinagar Police Station, against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 114 of I.P. Code.
3. 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. Thereafter, 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 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. 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. He has contended that looking to the conduct and the behaviour of the accused it is clearly established that the accused have provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He has contended that from the evidence of witnesses and other circumstantial evidence the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were giving mental and physical torture to the deceased and, therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. 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 and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed grave error in not believing the case of the prosecution. He has also read the provision of 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 accused from the charges levelled 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. Learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused has supported the Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge. He 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. Learned Judge has observed that from the deposition of the complainant it appears that the complainant met his daughter (victim) at 4.00 O'clock in the morning on 24.2.1992, however, before that the Executive Magistrate has recorded her first dying declaration at 10.50 A.M. on 23.2.1992, in which the deceased has stated that when she was preparing the hot milk on the stove and as the stove was not properly working, she used the pins and at that time all of a sudden the flame of the stove came out and was touched on the polyester saari of the deceased and, therefore, she received burns injury. In the said dying declaration she has categorically stated that there was no quarrel of any incident in the house and that it was an accident. The second dying declaration was taken at 20.25 hours on the next day. The executive Magistrate has first refused to take the second dying declaration as he had taken the dying declaration earlier and, therefore, he had refused and he returned back the Police Yadi. He has also asked to take the permission from the Collector for taking second dying declaration. However, at the instance and assurance from some socialist that they will get the permission from the Collector, he was ready to take the second dying declaration, which was taken after about 31 hours from the first dying declaration. The said dying declaration was taken in presence of relatives of the deceased. The contents of both the dying declarations are contradictory. The learned Judge has also observed that soon after the incident occurred the complainant has not filed any complaint and after the deceased died and funeral was over, the complainant has lodged the complaint. The learned Judge has also observed that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and the independent witnesses, who are the neighbourer residing nearby the house of the respondents where the incident had occurred, have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Judge has also observed that from the evidence it appears that the witnesses were not having any personal knowledge about the incident. 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 have 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 and 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 05.03.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Sessions Case No. 87 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