1. The Criminal Appeal No.146 of 1996 is filed by the appellant State against the judgment and order dated 21.11.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.39 of 1993 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the original accused No.1 – respondent in this Appeal, from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt. The learned Judge has convicted the said accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/, with further direction to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months in default of payment of fine. The said conviction and sentence part of the judgment is not under challenge in this Appeal.
2. The Criminal Appeal No.148 of 1996 is filed by the appellant State against the very same judgment and order dated 21.11.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.39 of 1993 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the original accused No.2 – respondent in this Appeal, from the charge of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code by giving benefit of doubt.
3. As both the Appeals arise out of the very same judgment and order passed by the learned Judge in Sessions Case No.39 of 1993, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
4. According to the prosecution case, after remarriage Amratben went to her in- law's house. When the complainant went to Mevasa for attending after death rites of mother-in-law of Amratben, the complainant was conveyed by daughter Amratben that her husband Ramesh is having illicit relations with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). On the date of the incident, deceased Amratben had breakfast and she kept one fourth loaf for Ramesh. Accused Ramesh got angry upon deceased Amratben and went for work without taking breakfast which had hurt the deceased Amratben. Therefore, she went into the room and poured kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze. On 22.4.1992, when the complainant was at her home at that time Narsi, son of the sister of the complainant came to her house and informed that Amratben is burnt. Upon inquiry by the complainant as to whether Amratben was taken to the hospital or any complaint has been lodged with the police she was informed that neither she was taken to the hospital nor police is informed. Thereafter, complainant went to her son Gopal at Bhatiya and told him to inform the police about the incident. Hence the complaint came to be lodged.
5. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
6. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
8. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
9. At the conclusion of the trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned judgment, convicted the accused No.1 – Ramesh Laxman Vanand, the respondent of Criminal Appeal No.146 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, with further direction to suffer three months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. The learned Judge, however, acquitted the said accused No.1 from the charge of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge acquitted the accused No.2 – respondent of Criminal Appeal No.148 of 1996 from the charge of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order so far as the learned Judge has acquitted the accused No.1 from the charge of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Appeal No.146 of 1996 is filed by the State and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order so far as the learned Judge has acquitted the accused No.2 from the charges of the offence under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Appeal No.148 of 1996 is filed by the State.
11. Heard Learned APP Mr.L.B.Dabhi, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. He has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law and evidence on record. He has contended that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties in its proper perspectives.
12. He has contended that the ill-treatment and cruelty is believed by the Court and the Court has held accused No.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was pregnant and was running fourth month at the time of her death. The Court has not considered that for a Indian woman illicit relations of her husband with another woman is almost cruelty and she never tolerate such thing.
13. He has contended that such illicit relations of a husband gives intolerable pain and torture to the wife and this torture and cruelty should be considered enough to instigate a woman to commit suicide. He has contended that since the allegations made by the deceased against her husband are believed by the Court, the Court ought to have considered this as sufficient evidence to establish the offence against under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Lastly, he has read the 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.
14. Notice is served to the other side. No one is present on behalf of the respondents – accused.
15. Heard the learned APP for the appellant – State. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. So far as Criminal Appeal No.146 of 1996 is concerned, from the record, it appears that the prosecution has prima-facie failed to prove the case of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the original accused No.1 – respondent of Criminal Appeal No.146 of 1996 as well as the case of offence under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the original accused No.2 – respondent of Criminal Appeal No.148 of 1996 and the learned Judge has rightly acquitted both the said accused for the respective offence.
16. 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.”
17. 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.
18. It is settled legal position that in an 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 both the respondents – accused for the respective offence 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, so far as acquitted both the respondents in respective Appeals is concerned, these Appeals are required to be dismissed.
19. In the result, both the Appeals are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No.39 of 1993 is confirmed whereunder the learned Judge has acquitted original accused No.1 - Ramesh Laxman Vanand under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and has acquitted accused No.2 – Lalitben Devshi for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 104 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest part of the said judgment and order wherein the accused No.1 - Ramesh Laxman Vanand is convicted and sentenced as stated above is not disturbed, as the same is not under challenge in the present Appeals. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Suo-motu notice issued by this Court stands discharged.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks