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 17.4.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No.50 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498A, 306, 304(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant is serving as Police Sub Inspector at Rander Police Station, Surat. He is resident of Vadnagar, Taluka : Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana. He is having one sister aged 27 years. She got married before 10 years at Village : Dungari, Vadnagar, with Girishbhai Babaldas. Thereafter, she was living at in laws house with motherinlaw, husband, brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw. Motherin law Sardaben, husband – Girishkumar and Rajubhai – brotherinlaw were beating Jagruti and taunting her that her father had not given steel cupboard. On 8.6.1991, the complainant received message that his sister has burnt and she is hospitalized in Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. On arriving at Ahmedabad Civil Hospital he came to know that inlaw's of his sister have burnt her and due to burn injury she has died, hence the complainant lodged the complaint.
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 not pleaded 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 was 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 17.4.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No.50 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
4. Heard Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She has contended that the learned Judge has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the accused have not committed offence under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge has not appreciated the prosecution witnesses.
5. She has contended that the learned Judge has not appreciated the fact that there is enough corroboration to the version of the complainant by medical evidence and panchnama. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate deposition of P.W. No.1 – Patel Vinodchandra Budhalal, who is examined at Ex.21. The said witness has categorically mentioned that there was mental as well as physical torture by the accused.
6. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated deposition of P.W. No.2 – Prajapati Hargovanbhai Dhulabhai, who is examined at Ex.22. Similarly the learned Judge has not properly appreciated deposition of Dashrathlal Parshottamdas Patel, who is examined at Ex.24.
7. She has contended that looking to the overall facts and depositions of prosecution witnesses there is enough corroboration to the version of the complainant and the learned Judge ought to have come to the conclusion that the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Heard Mr.K.B.Anandjiwala, learned advocate for the respondent No.1. He has contended that looking to the facts of the prosecution case so far as demand of steelcupboard is concerned, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the demand made by the respondents to the deceased. The complainant, brother of the deceased is Police Officer and he never bothered to visit the house of the deceased. Even he was not well aware with the family life of the deceased prior to the incident. From the crossexamination of this witness it primafacie appears that he has no knowledge regarding family life of the deceased. He has contended that just to book the respondents – accused complainant has filed this complaint without any knowledge and information. He has further contended that it is admitted by this witness that prior to the incident of six months he did not meet Jagrutiben.
9. He has contended that it is admitted by the present witness that he has no knowledge regarding the incident of the suicide committed by the deceased. It is also admitted by this witness that he has no knowledge that from whom he has come to know that harassment was meted out to the deceased. The demand of steelcupboard is never made to the deceased. He has contended that even from the evidence of the P.W. No.5 at Ex.41 Dr.Haresh D. Palekar he has stated that in his presence deceased has disclosed something but that evidence is not proved. He has contended that prosecution has failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judge has rightly considered defence version of the respondents accused and case of the prosecution. He has prayed that the judgment and order of acquittal is required to be confirmed.
10. Heard learned advocates for both the parties. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. From perusal of the evidence of P.W. No.1 who is Police Officer at relevant period shows that he did not meet deceased prior to six months of the incident. It is also on record and proved beyond reasonable doubt that this witness has no knowledge to show why deceased sister committed suicide. This witness is unable to show that what type of mental or physical harassment was given by the respondents to the deceased – Jagruti. I have also perused oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as per evidence of the complainant and other witness there is delay in filing of the FIR. It is disclosed by this witness in crossexamination that after meeting of the mind of the relatives they decided to file complaint so present complaint was filed against the respondents accused. To prove allegation of the prosecution that the respondents – accused are aggressor, abettor and instigator, ingredients of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be proved. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove approach and act of the respondents – accused with the deceased. In the present case, in absence of said ingredients offence under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code does not appear through oral as well as documentary evidence.
11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 17.4.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No.50 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks