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 20.03.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 43 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 original complainant has also preferred Criminal Revision Application No.154 of 1997 against the impugned Judgment and order dated 20.03.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 43 of 1995. Therefore, both, the Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1995 and Criminal Revision Application No. 154 of 1997 are heard together and decided by this common Judgment.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of the victim, daughter of the complainant, was solemnized with original accused No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) before six year prior to the date of incident. It is alleged that after marriage for about two years the marriage life of his daughter was happy, but, thereafter, as the accused wanted to start the diamond industry, they asked the deceased to arrange Rs.1 lac from the complainant. The said demand was not satisfied by the victim and, therefore, they started to give mental as well as physical torture to the deceased. It is alleged that on 30.1.1995 the accused had been to Surat at the place of the complainant and asked the complainant to come to Navsari for compromise and, therefore, the complainant had gone there and at that time they (accused) got excited and asked the complainant to take the victim with him or else to give money. Thereafter, the complainant went to Surat. It is alleged that on the date of filing of complaint at 11.00 O'clock the son of the brother of the complainant had informed him on phone that the victim is not well and she has been admitted in the Hospital. Therefore, the complainant, along with his wife, went to Navsari and went to Government Hospital, Navsari, with Khimjibhai, where he saw the dead body of Dinaben (victim). It was informed by Khimjibhai to the complainant that the deceased had taken the phenyl tablets and committed suicide. Therefore, the complainant lodged complaint before Jalalpore Police Station, against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498-A of I.P. Code.
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. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Mr. Samir Khan, 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. She has read the charge and the oral evidence of the witnesses and has contended that as the complainant could not satisfy the demand of Rs.1 lac made by the accused, they started giving mental as well as physical torture to the deceased and, therefore, the deceased was compel to commit suicide. She has contended that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence 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. She has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the deceased had 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. She has also read the provision of Evidence Act and contended that the presumption is also required to be drawn against the present respondents – 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 committed grave error in acquitting 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.
9. I have also heard learned Advocate Mr. Samir Khan, 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 as per the report of Chemical Analyzer the death was not occurred due to poison. The learned Judge has observed that the deceased was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Bhadreshbhai Nayak on 31.1.1995 in the morning at 8.30 hours and as per his certificate on the same day at 1.10 hours the victim was died. However, in his deposition before the Court said Dr.Bhadresh has deposed that the victim was admitted in his hospital at 8.00 hours in the morning on 31.1.1995 and he has informed to the Police station at 8.,30 hours and the victim was died at 9.15 hours. However, as per the deposition of Police Constable Raghunath Ramdas it has come in evidence that Dr. Bhadreshbhai Nayak had given wordhy on phone at 13.20 hours that Dinaben was admitted in the hospital at 8.30 hours and she was died at 13.15 hours. Therefore, there is material corroboration in the evidence of Dr. Bhadresh and the Police Constable about the time of death of deceased. The prosecution has also examined Dr. Tanna, who has categorically deposed, after going through the case papers of Dr. Rajesh Desai and Dr. Rana, that the deceased was suffering from some gynecologic problem. The learned Judge has categorically observed that the deceased was shifted to the hospital immediately by her husband (accused No.1) himself. The learned Judge has also observed that the prosecution has also not examined any of the neighbourer, who are residing nearby the place of the accused to prove that the deceased was given mental as well as physical torture by the accused. The witnesses, who are examined by the prosecution, are related witnesses. The learned Judge has categorically observed that looking to the evidence, produced on the record, 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 as well as the medical evidence, it clearly appears that the deceased has died as she was suffering from gynecologic problem. There are also material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has considered all the aspect of the matter and after properly appreciating the evidence, produced on the record, 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 20.03.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No.
43 of 1995, 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. 154 of 1997 is also dismissed.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas