State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal under 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal dated 27th September 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Himatganar in Sessions Case No.20 of 1986, wherein the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to record acquittal of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 2nd October 1985, the present respondent- accused has beaten deceased- Virchandbhai Vithalbhai Patel and thereafter, has thrown away the deceased, by tying a handkerchief on the deceased's mouth, into a well at Village Bhanpur, Taluka Idar, District Banaskantha and thereby caused death of deceased- Virchandbhai Vithalbhai Patel. The complaint was filed by Dahyabhai Joitabhai, who happens to be cousin of the deceased. On the complaint being filed, the matter was investigated and the Police, on completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge on 3rd April 1991. The accused pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. 2. The prosecution, to establish its case, examined nine witnesses as detailed hereunder:
Besides, the prosecution has also led necessary documentary evidence like Postmortem Note, Chemical Analyser's Report, etc. The learned Judge after taking into consideration the evidence led before him and after considering the rival submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused, has recorded acquittal.
3. Learned APP Mr.Pujari vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has committed error in recording acquittal though the prosecution has led reliable evidence and the evidence leads to one and the only conclusion, that is guilt of the accused. The learned APP invited attention of the Court to the evidence of PW-1, Dahyabhai Vithalbhai Patel, elder brother of the deceased, who is examined at Exhibit 12. The learned APP submitted that the witness has given the account of the incident and has also deposed before the Court that a quarrel which took place on earlier day between the deceased and the accused was the root cause for the accused organising assault on the deceased at night time and after tying a handkerchief on the deceased's face, the deceased was thrown into a well. The learned APP has also invited attention of the Court to the deposition of Vithalbhai Hirabhai Patel, PW-2, Exhibit 13.
4. Learned advocate Mr.D.M. Desai, who has filed his appearance for the respondent is not present. The Court, therefore, examined the evidence of record in detail and also perused the judgement with closer scrutiny. On perusal of the evidence it is noticed that the evidence of elder brother- Dahyabhai Vithalbhai Patel, PW-1, Exh.12, and the evidence of father of deceased, namely, Vithalbhai Hirabhai Patel, PW-2, Exhibit 13 are diagonally opposite to each other and they do not inspire sufficient confidence to record conviction relying on their evidence.
5. So far as death of the deceased is concerned, it is not in dispute that it was an unnatural death. The deceased has met with an unnatural death. The injuries which are sustained by the deceased are mentioned in the postmortem note as well as in the deposition of Dr.Deven Govindbhai Desai, who is examined at PW-7, Exh.21. The injuries set out by Dr.Desai are in para 4. They are 19 in number so far as external injuries are concerned. Internal injuries are set out in para 5. The doctor has stated that all these injuries are found to be ante mortem in nature. The doctor has also stated that in his opinion the deceased has died due to shock as a result of hemorrhage from various injuries to the body. In para 6, the doctor has stated that the external injuries no.1 and 5 are possible by means of human nails, but other external injuries are not possible by fist and kicks. The doctor has opined that internal injuries are possible by fist and kicks. The doctor has also stated that if a person is thrown and/ or falls in a well, which is 75' deep with water level of 4', all such injuries are not possible at a time. The doctor has also opined that the internal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the victim. Despite all what is stated by the doctor, the question remains as to whether there is sufficient evidence on record to connect the accused with the incident and whether the accused can be held responsible for death of the deceased.
6. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, the evidence is of such nature which does not inspire confidence. Not only that narration of incident by PW-2, father of deceased, who claims that he was present at the time of the incident in the field does not inspire any confidence and therefore, in absence of any reliable evidence, this Court finds difficult to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
It is well settled principle of law that in acquittal appeal where there is a possibility of two views, the one which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is also well settled principle of law that the Appellate Court would be slow in interfering with an order of acquittal until and unless the judgement of the Trial Court is perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. In the present appeal, we find that the reasons given by the trial Court are plausible, cogent and convincing. Thus, in light of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed any error in acquitting the accused.
It is a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is neither required to re-write the judgment nor to give a fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the court below are found just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.
Hemareddy, reported in A.I.R. 1981 SC 1417, wherein it is held as under:
“ .. .. This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi Vs. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary, (1967) 1 SCR 93 : (A.I.R. 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
7. Thus, in case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
8. In view of the above, this Court finds no substance in the appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The judgement and order dated 27th September 1991 rendered in Sessions Case No.20 of 1986 by the learned Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Himatnagar is upheld. Bailable warrant issued against the respondent-accused is cancelled.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) (G.B. SHAH, J.) karim