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 30.9.1993 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.309 of 1992. 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, deceased Rekhaben married to Khushalbhai Gajanand Savant 10 months prior to the date of incident. After the marriage Rekhaben had gone to reside at the house of accused. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was illtreating her from the very beginning and used to taunt her that she is not of good character and also used to beat her. After the marriage deceased Rekhaben had told her parents whenever she go to parental home. On 22.4.1992, when deceased Rekhaben was preparing Agarbatti in her house at around 5:00 p.m. at that time the accused came with the cycle and spoiled the prepared Agarbatti with the wheel of the cycle. Thereafter, without speaking anything started to beat her and abused her regarding her bad character. Being harassed by the accused in her marital life she was tired and therefore, on the same day at about 10:30 p.m. she poured kerosene on her body from the primus and ablaze. The fatherinlaw of the deceased was present in the house and they came there on hearing her shouts and then they took her to L.G.Hospital and admitted in burns ward. On 22.4.1992, Police SubInspector R.A.Makwana after receiving Vardhi came to L.G.Hospital on 23.4.1993 and went to the deceased in the burns ward. According to P.S.I. Makwana deceased Rekhaben was conscious and so he recorded her complaint and then sent the said complaint for registering the offence at Amraivadi Police Station. On 23.4.1992, Rekhaben expired at about 7:00 p.m.
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 person 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 30.9.1993 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.309 of 1992 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 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 party in its proper perspectives.
5. Ms.Punani has read charge, oral evidence of the prosecution as well as dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate and contended that the learned Judge has wrongly observed at para 21 to 23 that the prosecution has failed to prove case that due to illtreatment meted out by the respondent the deceased committed suicide. She has contended that looking to the conduct of the respondent – accused ingredients of Section 107 and 108 are primafacie proved beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the respondent – accused. 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.
6. Notice is served to the other side but no one is present on behalf of respondent – accused.
7. Heard learned APP for the appellant State. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. Looking to the charge framed against the respondent accused and the offence under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. I have perused panchnama and contents of the postmortem note. The learned Judge has observed at para21 that after analyzing the evidence of the prosecution the panchnama Ex.22 discloses that the deceased Rekhaben was staying in one room which consists of a small kitchen and there were pieces of burnt clothes and plastic jar found in the room. There was primus found in the kitchen. The kitchen is admeasuring hardly of 7' x 7' while th room is admeasuring 10' x 10'. The P.S.I. Collected the pieces of burn clothes, plastic jar and burnt clothes of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report from the said laboratory is received and in the said report it is stated that there was sign of hydrocarbon of kerosene in article Marked B, E and F which are pieces of burnt clothes and one wet cotton pad burnt green colour Sari and petticoat. It means that there were sign of kerosene on the clothes but there is also possibility of subsequent pouring of kerosene and that possibility cannot be ruled out more particularly when there is no smell on the body of deceased Rekhaben which is found to be there if there was pouring of kerosene at the time for committing suicide. The learned Judge has observed that evidence led by the prosecution itself discloses that the death of the deceased might be due to accident while preparing tea as disclosed first in point of time in the Vardhi Ex.24. The evidence of P.S.I. Shri Makwana, Executive Magistrate Shri Pravinbhai Limbachia and that of Shantaben Chauhan is not at all inspiring and not believable. The evidence of Pushpaben, sister of the deceased is also not inspiring confidence and there is no reliable, positive evidence on the point that the deceased had been meted out physical and mental harassment by the accused. The learned Judge has observed that the married life was hardly of 10 months and normally during those 10 months the husband would not like to allege against his wife regarding her doubtful character and would beat her for the same. In that connection I have perused evidence of the prosecution very minutely.
From the panchnama of place of offence, report of FSL I am of the view that the learned Judge has rightly considered evidence of the prosecution and has rightly acquitted the accused.
8. 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.”
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 30.9.1993 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.309 of 1992, 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