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 30.12.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.15 of 1993. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, the marriage of complainant, Ramaben Maheshbhai solemnized with one Maheshbhai Parshottambhai just before six years prior to the date of incident dated 28.3.1992. The accused No.1 Manglaben Parshottambhai was motherinlaw and accused Nos.2 and 3 were sistersinlaw of the deceased Ramaben Maheshbhai. After about one year of her marriage deceased Ramaben came to her parental house at Bagasara with her husband and there some quarrel took place therefore she stayed at her parental house. Just one and half month before the incident accused No.1, Manglaben Parshottambhai went to Bagasara i.e. parental house of the deceased and convinced the parents of the deceased and carried the deceased with her at Ahmedabad with the assurance that she will keep the deceased well. On 28.3.1992 at about 4.00 p.m. deceased Ramaben asked some money from the accused to purchase milk for her minor daughter and for that quarrel took place and the deceased was abused and insulted by the accused persons and they told her to die. Therefore, she enraged and was led to commit suicide and she poured kerosene on herself and ablaze and thereby committed suicide. 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 persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against them 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 persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.15 of 1993 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.
4. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have held that the oral evidence of P.W. No.1 Manjulaben Madhavdas Soni at Ex.11, P.W. No.2 Mathurbhai Madhavdas Soni at Ex.14, P.W. No.3 Bhavnaben @ Yogi Madhavdas Soni at Ex.16 and P.W. No.5 Bhakti Maheshbhai at Ex.18 clearly establish that the marriage life of the deceased was not so happy and she was subjected to cruelty.
5. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have held that the complaint given by the deceased at Ex.51, dying declaration clearly indicates the involvement of the accused persons. On 28.3.1992, at about 4:00 p.m. the deceased asked for some money from the accused No.1 and for that reasons she was insulted and abused by the accused persons and she was asked to die which led her to commit suicide. The cause for committing suicide by the deceased was very immediate and instant instigation by the accused persons to the deceased.
6. She has contended that the complaint i.e.
dying declaration at Ex.51 was recorded by P.W. No.13 immediately. After the incident and at the time of recording dying declaration any relatives of the deceased from her parental side were not present. The dying declaration is not suffering from any infirmity or inconsistency in any manner. The dying declaration at Ex.51 gets corroboration of oral testimony of P.W. No.5 at Ex.18 who happens to be minor daughter of the deceased. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the 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.
7. Notice is served to the other side. Ms.Tanuja N. Kachchhi, learned advocate is appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 3.
8. Ms.Tanuja has contended that the statement of deceased Ex.51 is recorded before the police and at that time doctor was not present. Therefore, it has no evidential value in eye of law. She has contended that evidences of P.W. Nos.1 to 3 are not believable, because, reason of committing suicide cannot be only mental or physical harassment. She has contended that there is not a single evidence showing that deceased was abetted, instigated or provoked to commit suicide by the respondents. She has contended that P.W. No.10 has stated that often Ramaben was telling that she wants to take divorce. From this statement it appears that Ramaben had some problem with her husband. She has contended that before one and half month of the incident, Ramaben had written many letters to her parents but nowhere she had mentioned that she had any sort of mental or physical harassment from her inlaws. She has contended that mental and physical harassment to the deceased meted out by the respondents accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. She has therefore prayed that no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge.
9. Heard learned advocates for both the parties. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. From the evidence on record it is proved that marriage life of deceased Ramaben was not happy and the cause of death of deceased is suicide. But the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the allegations levelled against the accused persons. The prosecution has led many evidences but they are not quality evidence as per law. On perusing the deposition of neighbours and minor daughter viz. Bhakti they are not corroborating each other. It is true that primafacie role of the present respondents is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
10. 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.”
11. 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.
12. 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 respondents – 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.
13. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 30.12.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.15 of 1993 acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks