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 12.5.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No.60 of 1994 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, the deceased Jayaben was wife of accused No.1. The accused No.2 is aunt of accused No.1. On 7.3.1994, the complainant, Babubhai Popatbhai Patel, gave complaint to Police Officer (Rural), Jamnagar. The broad facts of the case is that the complainant is residing at Dheba and doing business of selling milk. He is having two sisters. The elder one is Manju and younger one is Jaya. The marriage of Jaya took place before around eight months. After the marriage of Jaya she stayed at her in laws at Beraja for about eight days and thereafter Jaya and Mansukh went to live at Ahmedabad. Before two days of Utrayan the complainant got the message that Mansukhlal had gone to Ahmedabad without taking Jaya with him. Therefore, the complainant went to Beraja where he came to know that Mansukhlal had gone to Mumbai. After one week fatherin law and motherinlaw of Jaya dropped Jaya at Dheba saying that she is not working at home and taking rest saying she is not well. On inquiring from Jaya she informed that her husband is having illicit relation with her aunt(Mami) Manju and Manjumami is keeping key of house and cupboard with her. At the instigation of Manjumani her husband is quarreling with her every now and then and telling that she does not know any household work. Thereafter, on 6.3.1994 at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning fatherinlaw of Jaya came and informed that Jaya has burnt pouring kerosene.
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 is 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 not pleaded 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 accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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. Heard Learned APP Mr.K.P.Raval, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the deposition of the prosecution witness and medical evidence. The learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that there is enough corroboration by medical evidence to the version of the complainant in the complaint.
9. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the fact that even as per panchnama of the scene of offence it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that kerosene was used and at the behest of the accused the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. The learned Judge has not appreciated the fact that the incident has taken place within 7 years of the marriage life and therefore, even as per presumption under the Indian Evidence Act it is for the accused persons to rebut the same.
10. Heard Mr.B.D.Karia, learned advocate for the respondents. He has read charge and contended that at the relevant period respondent No.1 was a student and staying with the maternal aunt. He has contended that as per Sections 107 and 108 of the India Penal Code there must be some direct evidence to prove mental or physical harassment meted out by the respondents – accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that respondents have committed the said offence as abettor, provocator or instigator. He has contended that even from the evidence produced on record it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the said three ingredients. Lastly he has contended that learned Judge has rightly considered defence version and has acquitted the respondents. He has prayed to confirm the judgment and order of the learned Judge.
11. Heard learned advocates for both the parties. I have gone through the papers produced on record. In light of above submissions I have minutely perused oral as well as documentary evidence of the prosecution case. The prosecution has examined witnesses but they are all relatives. They have disclosed before the learned Judge that there was some illicit relation with the maternal aunt. To prove adulterous relation of any person it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that relation with cogent evidence. In the present case, prosecution has failed to produce any direct evidence to prove illicit relation.
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 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.
15. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 12.5.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No.60 of 1994 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, 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