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 1.9.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 151 of 1991, 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 Rekhaben, was solemnized with the respondent No.2 – original accused No.2 before about 1- 1/2 years prior to the alleged incident. The respondents No.1, 3 and 4 respectively are mother, father and sister of respondent No.2. The alleged incident took place on 15.7.1991. It is the case of the prosecution that since the inception of marriage and during the course of marital life, the deceased Rekhaben was subjected to cruelty for one or the other reasons and the demand for dowry was made and because of harassment and cruelty, Rekhaben had committed suicide on 15.7.1991 by hanging herself with a ceiling fan. Therefore, on the next day, the father of the deceased lodged complaint against the present respondents – accused. The offences under Sections 498- A, 306 read with Sections 114 of I.P. Code was registered against the respondents – original accused.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out, 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 Metropolitan Magistrate. Thereafter, as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate 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 statements 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. Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Mr. Samir Khan for Mr. Dagli, appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have also gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court 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 considering the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses it clearly appears that due to the harassment by the respondents – accused and for demand of dowry , the deceased was compelled to commit Suicide. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that as the respondents were demanding dowry from the deceased and were giving physical and mental torture and, therefore, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. 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 wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled 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 the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge and contended that looking to the facts and the evidence on the record, the learned Judge has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no interference may be called for. I have gone through the papers produced before me as also the Judgment of the Court below. I have also considered the oral as well as documentary produced on record.
9. From the Judgment of the trial Court, it appears that Prakashbhai, elder brother of accused No.2, who had gone to Godhra with Rekhaben and requested the complainant to allow Rekhaben (deceased) to reside at Godhra for some time so that the temperament of the in- laws would calm down, is neither cited as witness nor his statement was recorded. The learned Judge has also observed that if he is real brother of the accused No.2 and had tried to settle the issue, then his statement should have been recorded. The learned Judge has also observed that before raising presumption under Section 113 of the Evidence Act, three points are required to be established by the prosecution, viz. Firstly, the suicidal death has taken place, secondly, it is required to be established that the marital life was less than seven years of the deceased and, thirdly, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the husband or relative/s and then and then only the said statutory presumption would be available and not otherwise. Learned Judge has also observed that there are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses vis-a-vis their statements before the Police. The learned Judge has observed that whatever may be the cause and howsoever tragic the death of the deceased may be, the fundamentals enshrined in the Code of Criminal procedure for the trial of criminal cases and above all the objects behind the same, cannot be ignored by the Court. The learned Judge has also observed that the I.O. (Exh.24) has specifically stated that it was not stated to him by witnes Minaben or the mother or by the complainant – father of the deceased that all the accused or any of them were or was subjecting the deceased Rekhaben to any cruelty. He has also observed that in this case all the three related witnesses are unanimous only on one point that the deceased Rekhaben was subjected to cruelty, but, all the requisite details in that respect are totally missing. The statements given by them to the police and their deposition in Court are totally different and, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has etablished its case against any of the accused. It is true that some doubt has been credited that the accused may have involved, but, that doubt would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judge has categorically observed that from the evidence witnesses, examined by the prosecution, it is not clearly established that whether the deceased was subjected mental and physical cruelty by the accused. I have also gone through the main ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.Code, which reads as under :
“498-A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine -
[Explanation – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means -
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand]
10. Cruelty must prove through direct evidence of witnesses. Here, in the present case, from the oral evidence of witnesses, the prosecution could not be able to prove that due to the conduct and harassment by the accused the deceased has committed suicide. In the present case, learned Judge has categorically observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that any mental or physical cruelty was given to the deceased by her husband and other family members. Therefore, it appears that the accused have been falsely involved in the case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of prosecution. In my opinion, therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is proper and no interference is called for.
11. 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 respondents – 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.
12. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 1.9.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 151 of 1991 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