[] 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 15.07.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1993, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the charges alleged against him. [2] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of Leelaben, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with respondent before about 8 years of lodging of FIR and accused and deceased were residing at the field of Chhotubhai Desai. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused was having illicit relation with Manjuben Nayka and due to that illicit relation of the accused, often the quarrel took place between them and the accused was beating the deceased and accused left the deceased to her parental house and after two-three days, he took back her. However, the complainant and his wife, after some time, sent their daughter with the accused. It is alleged that the deceased informed her parents that the accused was having illicit relation with Manjuben. It is alleged that on 18.05.1993 at about 12.30 p.m., the accused approached the complainant and informed him that he does not want to keep relation with his daughter. He also informed the complainant that he will file case against him and due to mistake of the daughter of the complainant, the complainant could pay the money and after saying aforesaid, the accused left the in-laws house. It is alleged that on that very day, in the evening, the brother of the accused, came to him and informed that his daughter had consumed poison and was admitted in hospital at Pardi. Therefore, the complainant and his brother went to the house of the accused where they saw that Leelaben, daughter of the complainant was dead. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 of I.P. Code before the Pardi Police Station.
[3] Necessary investigation was carried out, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent – accused in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. Thereafter, as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondent – accused. The respondent – 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 certain documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statements 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 Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges levelled against him.
[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. appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat. I have 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 submitted that the present accused was having illicit relation with Manjuben. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses it clearly appears that due to the harassment by the husband and in-laws, the deceased Leelaben had consumed poison and committed suicide. She has also contended that, prima-facie, it appears that due to mental and physical torture from the husband, she had consumed poison and committed suicide. The learned APP has also drawn the attention of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and contended that from the deposition of witnesses it clearly appears that due to illicit relation of the accused, Leelaben had committed suicide. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. 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] Respondent is duly served, but, he has not remained present. I have gone through the papers produced before me as also the Judgment of the Court below. I have also considered the oral as well as documentary produced on record. From the deposition of witnesses it appears that the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and though they are related to the deceased, not a single witness has deposed that the accused was having illicit relation with Manjuben. From their depositions the prosecution could not be able to prove that due to physical and mental cruelty the deceased committed suicide. I have also gone through the main ingredients of Section 498-A I.P.Code, which reads as under :
“498-A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty – whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine -
[Explanation – For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means -
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand]
[9] Cruelty must be proved through direct evidence of witnesses. In the present case, from the oral evidence of witnesses, the prosecution could not prove that due to the conduct and harassment by the accused the deceased has committed suicide. The learned Judge, in his Judgment in Para – 12 has clearly observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was harassed by the accused. Even the parents of the deceased are material witnesses and as per their say, there was having illicit relation between accused and Manjuben and they have deposed in their depositions that they had never seen Manjuben. The learned Judge has also observed that there was illicit relation between accused and Manjuben for about four years. It also appears that none of the witnesses had disclosed that Manjuben was illicit relation with the respondent – accused. There are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. No independent witnesses have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. Prima facie, even the prosecution has not proved its case that due to the conduct of the accused, deceased Leelaben had committed suicide. Therefore, it appears that the accused have been falsely involved in the case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Judge has not committed any error in not believing the case of prosecution. 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 15.07.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 86 of 1993 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. ] vijay