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 9.7.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.51 of 1998. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 498 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Ramilaben, wife of Rameshbhai Veljibhai was resident of Plot No.582, Sector-6, Gandhinagar. On 2.9.1997, at about 10:00 a.m. the accused went to the Ramilaben house and took her with him on scooter to dispensary. Thereafter, on the way the accused took her from Gandhinagar to Surat and Mota and from there the accused took her to Mumbai in one Maruti- van. The accused abducted Ramilaben with the intention to forcefully marry with her and commit rape against the will. 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 person was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against him 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 person, to which the accused person not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused as stated above.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 9.7.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.51 of 1998, 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 in the present case all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, but so far as evidence of complainant Ramilaben is concerned she has fully supported the prosecution case.
11. She has contended that Ramilaben was taken away by the accused from the lawful possession of her husband with clear intention to commit rape against her will. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of complainant Rameshbhai at Ex.7. Lastly, she has read the observations of the learned Judge and contended that observation of the learned Judge is not proper in 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 but no one is present on behalf of the respondent – accused.
13. Heard learned APP for the appellant – State. On the day of incident when the complainant came to his house, his wife was not present. The complainant inquired whereabout of his wife from his neighbour viz. Kalpanaben, Hetalben, Anandiben wife of Lakshmanbhai. On inquiry, he came to know that Dashrathbhai has taken his wife to dispensary. This shows that he has not seen anything and he has depended upon the statement of the neighbours. Even Anandiben has not supported the version of the complainant. Ramilaben, who is victim in this case, has not disclosed anything that she was taken away forcefully by the respondent. Therefore, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent in view of the said evidence. I have minuted perused provisions of Section 366 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The main ingredients of the said sections are not proved in this case beyond reasonable doubt.
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 re-appreciate 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 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 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 9.7.1999 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.51 of 1998, acquitting the respondent – 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