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 13.9.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.93 of 1992. 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, marriage of the deceased Jayaben took place with the accused No.1. The accused No.2 is motherin law and accused No.3 is grand motherinlaw of the deceased Jayaben. The accused persons used to tell Jayaben that they did not like Jayaben and, therefore, walkout from the house. The deceased Jayaben was meted out torture and cruelty by the accused persons. On 7.6.1991, the deceased Jayaben poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze due unbearable torture and cruelty by the accused persons. She died on 8.6.1991 during the treatment. 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 13.9.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.93 of 1992, 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.
10. She has contended that the complaint of the deceased Jayaben is supported by the dying declaration produced at Ex.16. It was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, who is examined at Ex.14. In the dying declaration she has stated about the role played by the accused in illtreating her with cruelty as a result of which she was compelled to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze.
11. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have believed the evidence of Laljibhai, who is the brother of the deceased Jayaben whose evidence is recorded at Ex.19, witness Rajabhai Mangabhai at Ex.18, who is maternal uncle of the deceased Jayaben and Laxmiben Tejabhai, who is examined at Ex.19. All the witnesses have stated that the deceased used to complain them about the cruelty meted out to her and so on the basis of this evidence it is clear that deceased was compelled to commit suicide. 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.
12. Notice is served to the other side. No one is present on behalf of the respondents – accused.
13. Heard learned APP for the appellant State. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. I have perused the oral evidence of the doctor, who gave treatment to the deceased. So far as the case history is concerned, doctor has recorded it as accidental burn due to bursting of kerosenestove while she was preparing chapati, as stated by herself and smell of kerosene was present. It was argued before the learned Judge that, whether the case history was given by the deceased herself or the relative of the deceased. In relation to that when the doctor has endorsed that case history is given by the deceased herself then that issue is material evidence to consider that whether this is a case of accidental death or suicidal death. In that connection, Executive Magistrate was examined by the prosecution as P.W. No.2 vide Ex.14. I have perused the oral evidence of this witness. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are family member of the respondent No.1, who is the husband of the deceased. As per Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code, presence of main ingredients i.e. instigation, provocation and abetment in the commission of the offence is required to be proved. In the present case, primafacie it is established from the evidence of the P.W. No.3 that after marriage of the Jayaben with respondent No.1 they were staying separately within one and half month and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were residing separately at the farm (vadi). The learned Judge has rightly observed that when presence of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not proved, prosecution has failed to prove case against them.
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 13.9.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.93 of 1992, 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