[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 24.12.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 89 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 deceased Taraben was the daughter of the complainant who married the accused No.1 before about 5 years of the occurrence of the incident. It is also alleged that after the marriage, she was residing with accused No.1 and his mother. It is alleged in the complaint that before one and half years, Taraben, the daughter of the complainant came to her parental house and complained that her husband and her inlaws are giving mental as well as physical torture frequently to her. However, the complainant and his wife, after some time, sent their daughter to her inlaws house. It is alleged that thereafter on 21.7.1992 at about 1.30 a.m., the elder brother of the accused No.1 came to the house of the complainant and informed him that Taraben had poured kerosene herself and committed suicide on 20.07.1992 at about 10.30 and she was admitted in L. G. Hospital. The complainant therefore went to L. G. Hospital. It is alleged that when complainant asked Taraben regarding the incident, she told him that she herself poured kerosene and burnt herself. Except that she was not speaking anything. It is the case of the complainant that since the accused No.1 was beating Tara, she had poured kerosene on herself and thereby committed suicide. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, of I.P. Code before the Maninagar 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 learned A.P.P. Ms. Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and learned advocate Ms.S. D. Rami appearing on behalf of the respondents. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
[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 Tara had poured kerosene on herself and thereby committed suicide. She has contended that two dying declarations were recorded by Executive Magistrate and Police Sub Inspector. She has contended that the learned Judge has wrongly observed that dying declarations and time of dying declarations are different. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly considered the dying declaration of the deceased which is material evidence. She has also contended that there is evidence on record that the accused used to beat the deceased Taraben. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that 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. The learned APP has also drawn the attention of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and contended that from the deposition of witnesses it clearly appears that there was mental harassment on the part of the accused and her husband. She drew the attention of this Court to the contents of P.M. note, panchnama and complaint. She has also read the medical evidence as also the Post Mortem Report and contended that the death of deceased was caused due to shock and burn. 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 submitted that the prosecution proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and wrongly acquitted the accused and therefore, by way of this Appeal, she prayed to allow the appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of the trial Court.
[8] Learned advocate for the respondents has contended that the learned Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents from the aforesaid charges. She has submitted that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned Judge has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly acquitted the accused. She drew the attention of this Court to the contents of both dying declarations recorded by the Executive Magistrate and Police Sub Inspector and submitted that the Udesingh Karsanbhai Waghela, the Executive Magistrate stated in his deposition that he has started recording dying declaration of the deceased at 2.00 a.m whereas Police Sub Inspector Mr.Panchal stated in his deposition that he took half an hour to record dying declaration of the deceased and it was completed at 2.00 a.m. She submitted that looking to the time in both the dying declarations, it creates doubt. She has contended that except the interested witnesses, the prosecution has not examined any independent evidence, though there was possibility of procuring. She has contended that the complainant has stated in his complaint that when he asked the deceased Taraben, she told him that she herself has poured kerosene on herself and she did not say anything more, whereas the complainant in his deposition has stated that when he asked Taraben that how this had happened, then the deceased told him that accused No.1 burnt her alive. She has therefore prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the judgment and order deserves to the confirmed.
[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, has given reasons and findings in Paragraphs No.5 to 7. The learned Judge 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. Learned Judge has observed that the accused No.3 and the accused No.1 are the real brothers and they have no relation even to talk with each other and the criminal as well as civil cases were also pending against them. The learned Judge has also observed that P.S.I. Panchal has stated in his cross examination that when he was recording the dying declaration of deceased Taraben she was speaking in a normal way and was not findng any difficulty in speaking or was not speaking in a low tone. Dr. Kotari has stated in his cross examination that on account of the burn injuries, one cannot speak in a normal way but one has to make strenuous effort to speak. The learned Judge has come to the conclusion that both the dying declarations are not free from suspicion. Thus, the evidence on record is not cogent, reliable trustworthy to bring home the charge of the accused. Therefore, it appears that the accused has 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 24.12.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 89 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