[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 15.01.1998 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.16 of 1993, 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 on 27.9.1992 at about 17.00 hours, due to mental and physical torture from the husband and other family members, Rasida Kasam had committed suicide by taking poisonousness tablet. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 506(2) and 34 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 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 Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant – State and Mr.R. C. Kakkad, learned advocate for the respondents.
[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 Rasida had consumed poisonous substance and had committed suicide. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that earlier, due to mental and physical torture from the husband and other family members, the deceased had gone to her parental home and complained her parents about the physical and mental harassment. She has contended that P.W. - Fatmaben Mahmadbhai was present and she had accompanied the deceased to the hospital and she was present in the hospital till deceased died. She has contended that when the complainant, her husband and the brother of the deceased reached the hospital, Rasida had expired and as per the information of P.W. - Fatmaben, the complainant filed the complaint. She has contended that the ingredients of Sections 498A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Judge has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid provisions. 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. 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 for the respondents has contended that before the Executive Magistrate, the deceased has disclosed in the dying declaration at Ex.19 that on account of power cut i.e. electricity, deceased Rasida, by mistake had consumed poisonousness tablet. He has also contended that the ingredients under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code is also not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges leveled against them. He has therefore urged that the judgment and order of the acquittal be confirmed and the appeal be dismissed.
[9] 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]
[10] 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 – 26 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. Looking the place of the offence and contents of panchnama, it appears that the prosecution did not examine any independent witness during the trial. From the evidence, it is not established that the accused had instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. 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 15.01.1998 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.16 of 1993 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