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 19.4.1995 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.9 of 1994. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 22.11.1993 at about 22.30 hours Kalpanaben committed suicide pouring kerosene on herself and ablaze due to mental and physically cruelty meted out to her by her husband. The husband was forcing her to bring money from her father's house. 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, chargesheet 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 pleaded not 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 persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were 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.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.4.1995 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.9 of 1994, 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 deceased Kalpanaben has stated about the illtreatment and reasons for her suicide in her dying declaration. As a result of mental, physical torture given by the accused, she burnt herself by pouring kerosene. The medical evidence also shows that she died due to the burn injury.
11. She has contended that the learned Judge has committed an error in believing that because of the illicit relation of deceased with one Kasambhai she committed suicide. This finding of the Court is based only on assumption without any cogent evidence. 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. Heard Ms.Nayna Panchal, learned advocate for the respondent – accused. She has that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove dying declaration and contents of the complaint beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that mental and physical harassment to the deceased meted out by the respondent accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. She has prayed that no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge.
13. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. In the present case, the case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of dying declaration. As per the evidence of the doctor, he has disclosed that deceased told him to change her dying declaration. Therefore, the learned Judge has observed that dying declaration is not trustworthy, reliable and acceptable and he has assigned sound reasons in his judgment and present respondent is acquitted from the said offence.
14. In a 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 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 19.4.1995 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.9 of 1994, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z. K. SAIYED, J.) kks