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 10.02.1997 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kutch - Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 62 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 the marriage of Kanta, the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with Ramesh, present respondent No.1 – original accused No.1. It is alleged that after marriage, about 2 to 2-1/2 years, the victim was living happy married life in her in-laws place. However, thereafter, keeping some doubt about the character of the victim, the respondents were taunting her and the victim was frequently beaten by her husband. It is alleged that due to the mental as well as physical torture, on 7.8.1995 at 16.00 hours, the victim has committed suicide by jumping in the well. Therefore, the complainant has filed complaint against the present respondents – original accused before Rahpar Police Station. The Police registered the complaint and the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P. Code was registered against the accused.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out, 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 respondent – accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Assistant 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. Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Hansa Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. U.D. Mehta for Mr. B.D. Karia, appearing for the respondents – original accused. 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 considering the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses and other independent evidence, it clearly appears that due to physical and mental harassment by the respondents and on instigation, the deceased herself had jumped in the well and committed suicide. 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 an error in not believing the case of the prosecution. She has also read the provision of Evidence Act and contended that the presumption is also required to be drawn against the present respondent – accused. She 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 wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. She, 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. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta, appearing on behalf of the respondents – accused has supported the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of complainant and other independent witnesses and they have not deposed, as stated before the Police in their statements. He has contended that other witnesses are the Police witnesses, who have no personal knowledge about the incident. He has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, the learned Judge has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no interference may be called for.
9. From the observation of the trial Court it is clearly established that the prosecution could not be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Judge has observed that there are material contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses. They have not stated before the Court as per their statements, recorded before the Police. Learned Judge has also observed that Dipikaben, daughter of the accused No.1 and the deceased, has not supported the case of the prosecution. Another independent witness Ramiben, who is neighbou, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Looking to the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on the record, I am of the opinion that when the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the ingredients of Section 498-A I.P. Code is not proved 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 10.02.1997 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj, in Sessions Case No. 62 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