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 06.03.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 183 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the charges alleged against him. Against the said Judgment, the appellant – State has filed present Appeal against respondents – original accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of Vinaben, was solemnized with the respondent – original accused on 29.5.1992 at Junagadh. It is alleged that both, the deceased and the accused were in love with each other and, therefore, the said marriage was “love marriage”. It is alleged in the complaint that since last four months of the alleged incident, the accused was giving mental as well as physical torture to the deceased and some times she was driven out from the house. Therefore, on 27.10.1993 the deceased herself poured kerosene on her and ablaze. The neighbourers, therefore, shifted the victim to the hospital where she lodged complaint against her husband. It is alleged that at that time she was fully conscious. The said complaint was registered videe CR No. II – 456/93. The investigation was carried out by PSI Shri R.J. Barot, who has prepared the panchnama of scene of offence and recorded the statement of witnesses. During the treatment, the victim has died on 28.10.1993 and, therefore, Section 306 I.P. Code has been added.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent – accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. 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 respondent – 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 in all 12 witnesses and relied upon the documents. On behalf of defence in all 6 witnesses have been examined. 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 respondent – 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. Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Mr. Samir Khan for Mr. Y.S. Lakhani, appearing on behalf of the respondent. I have also 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 mental and physical harassment by the respondent – accused, the deceased was compelled to commit Suicide. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that there was love affairs between the accused and the deceased and, therefore, due to love affairs they married. Thereafter, the respondent was giving physical and mental torture to the deceased and some times the deceased was driven out from the house and, therefore, the deceased has no other option, but, to commit suicide. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, prima- facie, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. She, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
8. Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused, has supported the Judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge and contended that looking to the facts and the evidence on the record, the learned Judge has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no interference may be called for. 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 evidence produced on the record.
9. From the Judgment of the trial Court, the learned Judge has observed that dying declaration was not properly record in a proper manner. The prosecution has not examined the material witnesses. It is also evident from the record that the deceased was residing at Surat, however, the investigating agency has not recorded any statement of witnesses of Surat. No evidence is produced by the prosecution that the accused has mentally and physically tortured the deceased during their stay at Junagadh. The learned Judge has also observed that both, the accused and the deceased had gone to Junagadh where they have decided to take divorce with mutual consent and written agreement was also executed. Learned Judge has also observed that there are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses vis-a-vis their statements before the Police.
10. I have considered the arguments of both the sides. I have also gone through the Judgment of the trial Court. From the Judgment, it appears that the learned Judge has properly considered the evidence prosecution witnesses and also the evidence of defence witnesses and the documents produced on the record. As per Section 113 of the Evidence Act, three points are required to be established by the prosecution, viz. Firstly, the suicidal death has taken place, secondly, it is required to be established that the marital life was less than seven years of the deceased and, thirdly, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the husband or relative/s and then and then only the said statutory presumption would be available and not otherwise. It is true that some doubt has been created that the accused may have involved in the alleged offence, but, that doubt would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Judge has categorically observed that from the evidence witnesses, examined by the prosecution, it is not clearly established that whether the deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the accused. 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 willful 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]
11. Cruelty must prove through direct evidence of witnesses. Here, in the present case, from the oral evidence of witnesses, the prosecution could not be able to prove that due to the conduct and harassment by the accused the deceased has committed suicide. In the present case, learned Judge has categorically observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that any mental or physical cruelty was given to the deceased by her husband. 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.
12. 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.
13. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 6.3.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 183 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.) sas