[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 27.06.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1992, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges alleged against them.
[2] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of Rasidaben, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with respondent No.2 before about 6-7 months of incident. It is alleged in the complaint that the husband and inlaws of Rasidaben were giving mental as well as physical torture frequently to her. It is alleged that due to the harassment by the husband and in-laws, the deceased Rasidaben had poured kerosene on herself and committed suicide. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 of I.P. Code before the Junagadh City 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 respondents – 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 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 certain 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 Assistant 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. Mr. K. P. Raval, 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 Rasidaben had poured keresone on herself and committed suicide. She has also contended that the prosecution has examined mother of deceased, sisters of the deceased and other witnesses in support of its case, but the learned Judge has not considered the same. She has also contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the the evidence of Executive Magistrate Mr.Mansukhlal who recorded the dying declaration at Ex.29. She has also contended that the learned Judge has also not appreciated the evidence of mother of deceased to the effect that deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the husband and father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. She has also contended that the evidence of Dr.Ratilal Nathalal, P.W.1 who had conducted postmortum of the deadbody of the deceased, is not considering by the learned Judge. She has also contended that the learned Judge has not appreciated that the prosecution witnesses are mother and two sisters of the deceased supported by dying declaration of the deceased which was made before the Executive magistrate and also corroborates with the medical evidence. 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 them. He, 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] 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. 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 be able to 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. From the evidence of P.W.1 – Dr.Ratilal Bathalal Totia at Ex.8, it is established that the cause of death of deceased is unnatural and the question regarding the death is concerned, nothing can be arose from the version of the deceased in dying declaration, but looking to the evidence of the mother of the deceased, she is admitted that prior to the incident, the deceased stayed with her and marriage life is only 6-7 months. It is also established from the version of the sisters of the deceased that there was some fear in the mind of the deceased that her inlaws will kill her and for that purpose she wrote a letter to her parents and in result just to avoid her inlaws' house, she had committed suicide. It is also established that at the time of incident, the deceased was at her parental home and not at her inlaws. The learned Judge, in his Judgment in Para – 22 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, the aspects of instigation or provocation or any kind of abetment on the part of the accused are not established against the accused persons and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons. Even the ingredients under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted to the case of the accused. 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.
[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 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.
[11] In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 27.06.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 92 of 1992 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)