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 03.06.1996 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1995, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges alleged against them. 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 one Arjanbhai Lakhmanbhai, resident of Talala, on 19.10.1994 at 10.00 O'clock had intimated Talala Police Station, that Shobhnaben, the wife of his younger brother Ramnikbhai had poured kerosene on her at the house and burnt herself and had expired. On this information, as per provision of Section 174 Cr. P.C., the Head Constable of Talala Police station made entry No. 31/94 in the station diary. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.S.I. of Talala Police station. During that time the complainant Jivrajbhai Ambabhai, resident of Vanthali lodged complaint before Talala Police Station, alleging that the marriage of his younger daughter Shobhna (victim) was solemnized with the accused No.1 (respondent No.1) before about 5 months before the incident i.e. on 19.10.1994. It is alleged in the complaint that on 13.10.1994 the victim had come to attend the marriage of his relative and informed that her husband (accused No.1) is having illicit relation with Meenaben, the wife of elder brother of accused No.1 and, therefore, her husband and Meenaben are giving physical and mental torture to her. It is alleged that thereafter the victim was convinced and sent to her in-law's house. Thereafter, on 19.10.1994, at about 11.00 O'clock, the complainant received message that his daughter Shobhna is not well and that he was called there. Therefore, the complainant, along with his elder brother and other relatives had gone to Talala Hospital where they saw the dead body of his daughter Shobhana which was totally burnt. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint before Talala Police Station, which was registered against the present respondents – accused for the offences under sections 306, 498-A and 114 of I.P. Code.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out and the 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 Magistrate. Thereafter, as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has 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 the documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statement 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. Board shows that respondents are served, but, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 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 appreciating the facts and evidence on the record. He has read the charge and the oral evidence of the witnesses. He has contended that looking to the conduct and the behaviour of the accused it is clearly established that the accused have provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He has contended that from the evidence of witnesses and other circumstantial evidence the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were giving mental and physical torture to the deceased and, therefore, the deceased has committed suicide. He has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the deceased has committed suicide at the instance of respondents – accused and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed grave error in not believing the case of the prosecution. He has also read the provision of Evidence Act and contended that the presumption is also required to be drawn against the present respondents – accused. He 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 committed grave error of acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. He, 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. Board shows that other side is served, but, no body is appearing on behalf of the respondents.
9. From the observation of the trial Court it appears that the learned Judge has observed that the prosecution has not examined any neighbour who are residing nearby the house of the accused where the deceased has committed suicide and even not examined any witness of Talala. The prosecution has only examined the witnesses who are nearly related to each other. Learned Judge has observed that the story of illicit relation between accused No.1 with the wife of his elder brother is also not believable as the age of the accused was below 8 years than the wife of his elder brother. It has also come in evidence that when the marriage of accused No.2 was solemnized, at that time, the age of the accused No.1 was 8 years and the accused No.1 is like the son of accused No.2. The learned Judge has also observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove the illicit relation between the accused Nos.1 & 2 and, therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution is not believable. The learned Judge has also observed that from the evidence it appears that the complainant was not having any personal knowledge about the mental and physical torture given to the deceased by the accused, but, his wife had informed him about the same. The learned Judge has categorically observed that the prosecution could not be able to produce any evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have provoked and instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Judge has observed that looking to the evidence, produced on the record, the abatement, instigation and provocation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot be considered that due to the instigation, provocation and abatement the deceased has committed suicide. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly considered all the aspect of the matter and after properly appreciating the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In my opinion, therefore, the Judgment of the trial Court is proper and no interference is called for.
10. 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 respondent – 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.
11. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 03.06.1996 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1995, 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