1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr.
P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 20.9.1991 rendered in Sessions Case No.268 of 1989 by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadodara. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 306 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, witness Bhupendrabhai Jethalal Soni and his wife Chandrikaben were living in Ghantiyala area, Vadodara. They married about 14 years back. Chandraikaben had love affair with accused. Thereafter, she had love affair with Kiranbhai Sindhi, who is having grocery shop in the same area. On 5.9.1989, at 8:00 o'clock in the morning Chandrikaben went to the shop of Kiranbhai Sindhi and gave him one letter. Accused with whom Chandrikaben had love affair had seen her giving letter to Kiranbhai and started quarrel with him. Thereafter, Chandrikaben consumed acid. When Bhupendrabhai went inside the room he saw Chandrikaben was having acid bottle in one hand and froth was coming out from her mouth. She was immediately hospitalized and on 9.9.1989 she died.
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 triable by Court of Sessions the same was committed to the Sessions Court.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person not pleaded 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 person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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 20.9.1991 rendered in Sessions Case No.268 of 1989 by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadodara, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
4. Heard Learned APP Ms.Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She has submitted that there are ample direct and indirect evidence produced on record to connect the accused with the crime. She has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in discarding the evidence of three dieing declarations of the deceased.
5. She has submitted that due to illicit relation and illegal demand of the accused in the result the deceased committed suicide. She has contended that prosecution has examined P.W. No.1 – Kiranbhai M.Thakore. As per his say, letter was written by the deceased.
6. She has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in discarding the evidence of the dieing declarations on the ground that there is no specific word of threat. The learned Judge has erred in discarding the evidence of Investigating Officer on the ground that the same was recorded at a late stage.
7. She has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in holding that there are inconsistencies in the statement made in different dieing declarations. The learned Judge has erred in discarding the evidence of dieing declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate without any cogent reasons.
8. She has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have relied upon the dieing declarations recorded by three different persons. The learned Judge ought to have considered that the dieing declaration which has been recorded by the police in presence of the doctor may be relied upon. She has submitted that the learned Judge has given more weight to minor discrepancy in the three dieing declarations and thereby erred in discarding their evidence.
9. The other side is served but none is present.
10. Heard learned APP for the appellant State. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. I have perused oral version of Kiranbhai M.Thakore at Ex.7. In his oral version he has stated that the deceased came to his shop and gave one letter. From this version it does not primafacie appear that the accused had given any threat to the deceased. I have also perused evidence of neighbour of the deceased Babuhai S.Patel at Ex.12. The cause of suicide is not explained by the deceased to this witness. Even no witness is examined in connection with the same. Further statement of Chandrikaben is produced on record as well as oral version of doctor Bhanuprasad Acharya who is examined at Ex.20. As per his evidence, the deceased had obtained paper and pen from him. Therefore, ingredients of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. There were no relation between them despite that present respondent has tried to misuse her. In the result, due to fear she committed suicide. In light of the contents of Ex.14, it is now required to be noted that whether the act of the present respondent can be considered that he was abettor and in connection with his abetment deceased has committed suicide.
11. The charge was framed against the present respondent and thereafter it was altered for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, but just to prove the case, ingredients of Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case nothing is recovered from possession of the present respondents accused. So far as the main ingredient of the offence under Section 397 of the IPC is concerned, it is not proved.
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 20.9.1991 rendered in Sessions Case No.268 of 1989 by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadodara, 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