[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 13.09.1993 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1991, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the charges alleged against her.
[2] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of Manjula, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with Ashok Chhanabhai Kumbhar. It is alleged in the complaint that on 21.04.1991, there was some festival at village : Manavgadh, wherein the members of the family gathered. At that time, at 11.00, from village : Pipalva, Shri Mansukhbhai, the uncle of Ashok came there and asked about Manula and the complainant did not say anything, however, the uncle of Ashok informed them that Manjula went to bring water in the morning at 6.00 a.m and thereafter she did not return. The complainant and other family members reached at Village : Pipalva at about 1.00 p.m. At that time, the father-in-law of Manjula met them and told that sandal of Manjula found in the well and empty pot put outside the well and, therefore, it might be possible that the Majula could fall in the well. Manjula, the daughter of the complainant came to her parental house and complained that her mother-in-law is giving mental as well as physical torture frequently to her. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 306 of I.P. Code before the Lathi Police Station.
[3] Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent – accused in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. 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 respondent – accused. The respondent – 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 certain documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the respondent – 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 respondent – accused from the charges levelled against her.
[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. Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat. I have 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 husband and in-laws, the deceased Manjula had, by falling herself in the well, committed suicide. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the evidence of the complainant Parshottam, the father of the deceased, Vanmali Parshottam brother of deceased, and Dhirubhai Kanjibhai, the uncle of deceased. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have raised presumption under section 113A of the Evidence Act as the incident took place within the period of 7 years of the marriage. She has contended that the ingredients of sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Judge has not considered the same. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that due to mental and physical torture from the respondent, the deceased had committed suicide. The learned APP has also drawn the attention of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and contended that from deposition of witnesses it clearly appears that there was mental harassment on the part of the accused. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against her. 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] The respondent is duly served, but, she has not remained present. 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. Looking to the complaint, it is established that the father of the deceased had informed the Investigating Officer about the alleged incident, but before that the complainant had given the complaint to P.S.I. on 21st regarding the same. In spite of unknown reason or the police officer known good reason, till 22.04.1991, the said complaint was not registered by the police. Even the complaint was filed on the day of incident. Looking to the facts of the complaint, it is established that in the complaint, which type of mental cruelty or mental and physical torture is given to the deceased, is not disclosed. From the deposition of witnesses it appears that the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and though they are related to the deceased, not a single witness has deposed anything about the conduct or mis-behaviour of the accused with the deceased. From their depositions the prosecution could not prove that due to physical and mental cruelty the deceased committed suicide. 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 wilful 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]
[9] Cruelty must be proved through direct evidence of witnesses. In the present case, from the oral evidence of witnesses, the prosecution could not prove that due to the conduct and harassment by the accused the deceased has committed suicide. The learned Judge, in his Judgment in Para – 13 has clearly observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was harassed by the accused. There are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. No independent witnesses have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it appears that the accused has 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.
[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 13.09.1993 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 65 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. ] vijay