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 07.06.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1992, 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 original complainant has also preferred Criminal Revision Application No.302 of 1995 against the impugned Judgment and order dated 7.6.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.22 of 1992. Therefore, both, the Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 1995 and Criminal Revision Application No. 302 of 1995 are decided by this common Judgment.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased has pured kerosene on her and she herself ablaze and, therefore, she was admitted in Irvin Hospital, Jamnagar, where the police has registered the case of suicide against the deceased for the offence under Section 309 of I.P. Code. The victim has also lodged the complaint before Police and also gave dying declaration before the Executive Magistrate. However, during the treatment, the victim has expired and, therefore, the case for the offence under Section 309 of I.P. Code, registered against her was abated. The father of the deceased has also filed private complaint against the respondents – accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar, in which it is alleged that her daughter (victim) was married with Dhanjibhai and she was residing with her husband at her in-law's place. It is alleged that on 31.5.1991 the husband of the victim, who is serving in P.W.D. had gone out in the morning, at that time, at about 10.00 O'clock in the morning the respondents – accused have quarreled with the deceased and beaten her and also threatened her and instigated her to commit suicide. It is alleged that due to this behaviour and threat from the respondents – accused, the deceased had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and ablaze herself. The Police was directed to investigate into the matter. The offence under Sections 306 read with Section 34 has been registered against the respondents – accused.
4. 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 Metropolitan 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.
5. 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.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.
7. Heard learned A.P.P. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Mr. Munshi, appearing on behalf of the original complainant in Revision Application. 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.
8. 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 in the dying declaration, recorded by the Executive Magistrate, the deceased had categorically disclosed that due to instigation, provocation and abatement made by the accused, she has committed suicide. Learned APP has further contended that earlier the Police has recorded the statement of the deceased and considering the statement, the Police has registered the offence under Section 409 I.P. Code against the deceased. Thereafter, during the investigation, as the victim was died, the investigation was stopped and Police filed abated summary report in the Court, which was granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He has contended that thereafter the complainant filed private complaint against the accused for the offence under Sections 306, 34 I.P. Code in the Court which was sent to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. He has contended that the prosecution has produced sufficient witnesses to establish the case against the respondents, however, the learned Judge has not properly considered the documentary as well as oral evidence produced on the record by the prosecution. 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.
9. I have also heard learned Advocate Mr. Munshi, appearing on behalf of the original complainant and considered the arguments advanced by him. Board shows that other side is served, but, no body is appearing on behalf of the respondents.
10. From the observation of the trial Court, the learned Judge has observed that first the complaint (Mark-A) was given by the deceased on 31.5.1991 before the Police and looking to the contents of that complaint the police has registered the offence under Section 309 I.P. Code for suicide. However, during the investigation, the victim died and, therefore, the Police has filed abated summary which was granted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the said complaint was not considered as F.I.R. Thereafter, the father of the deceased has filed complaint, through Advocate, against the respondents – accused for the offences under Sections 306, 34 I.P. Code on 10.6.1991 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was sent to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. The investigation was carried out by the Police and in pursuance to the complaint, the statements of witnesses were recorded by the Police. The accused were arrested and the charge-sheet was filed. It seems that before the above complaint was registered, the father-in-law of the deceased had sent the application (Mark 31/1) to the D.S.P., Jamnagar, alleging that the police is not properly investigating into the matter. The investigation of the said application was handed over to the Dy. S.P. The learned Judge has observed that most of the witnesses are related witnesses and, therefore, their evidence cannot be considered as reliable and trustworthy evidence. The prosecution has examined Executive Magistrate, who has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. It has come in evidence that against the said Executive Magistrate, the case under the provisions of Prevention of Anti Corruption Act is going on and his integrity is also doubtful. In the dying declaration in many places there are over-writing and the time of recording the dying declaration is also over written. The doctor, who has given opinion that the deceased was conscious and sound and in a position to give statement, is also not examined by the prosecution. The learned Judge has also observed that at the time of recording the dying declaration of the deceased, the relatives of the deceased were present. The learned Judge has observed that looking to the evidence, produced on the record, under Section 107 I.P. Code, 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 evidence produced on the record, it appears that the deceased has committed suicide due to some other reasons. There are also material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The learned Judge has considered all the aspect of the matter and after properly appreciating the evidence, he 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.
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 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.
12. In view of above, the Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and order dated 07.06.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1992, is hereby confirmed. Bail Bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding to be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
13. In view of above order passed in main Appeal, the Criminal Revision Application No.302 of 1995 is also dismissed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas