1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 21.7.1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiyad, in Sessions Case No.42 of 1991. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, Jayshriben marriage with the accused took place before about seven months of the incident. The accused had love affairs with Gitaben and because of that deceased Jayshriben was mentally and physically harassed by the accused. Jayshriben got tired of harassment meted out to her by the accused and in the resulted she committed suicide within seven months of marriage span by taking tablets of Endozsulpha (poisonous tablets). Hence the complainant lodged the complaint.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused person was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against him in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused person, to which the accused person not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused as stated above.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.7.1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiyad, in Sessions Case No.42 of 1991, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
4. Heard Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. She has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
5. She has contended that the learned Judge ought not to have compared the hand writings of the letter by a mere look at the same but ought to have called upon the hand writing expert. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that since the deceased wife had been under medication for a long period, very well knew about the drug to be consumed and on the fateful day when she had consumed the drug then the medicines prescribed to her, was predetermined suicidal attempts as a result of mental and physical torture by the respondent accused and therefore, the learned Judge ought to have convicted the accused person. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that the observations made by the learned Judge are not proper in the eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
6. Heard Mr.Praful Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent. He has read Ex.41 letter and contended that when the fact about love affairs of deceased disclosed, to protect her image she committed suicide. The cause of suicide is not harassment or illtreatment meted out to her by the respondent. He has prayed that no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge.
7. Heard learned advocates for both the parties. I have perused oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution. From the crossexamination of the witnesses it appears that poisonous tablets were lying with the other tables and due to illhealth she consumed poisonous tablets. It is required to be noted that when the contents of letter Ex.41 established that the deceased was having love affairs with other person, she has committed suicide.
8. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under:
“16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.”
9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
10. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal Appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite 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 as well as 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 the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 21.7.1992 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiyad, in Sessions Case No.42 of 1991, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks