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 3.7.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.79 of 1996. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, marriage of deceased Hiraben took place with the accused No.1 before about five years of the incident happened. The accused Nos.1 and 3 were fatherinlaw and motherinlaw of the deceased. The accused No.1 was physically harassing the deceased. The accused Nos.2 and 3 were taunting the deceased. On 17.2.1996, due to harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased she committed suicide by strangulating. Hence the complaint came to be lodged.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet 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.
4. 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.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. 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.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents – accused.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 3.7.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.79 of 1996, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. 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.
10. She has contended that the deceased was married to accused No.1 five years back and their marriage life was of only five years. This clearly puts the whole matter in the presumption available under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act. She has contended that the deceased was of and on harassed mentally and physically by her inlaws. The deposition of the parents of the deceased completely support the prosecution case.
11. She has contended that the cruelty meted out to her was so gross that she had to commit suicide by strangulating. She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have relied on evidence placed before the Court regarding the cruelty in the form of physical torture whereby the prosecution witnesses have deposed that the deceased was not given enough food and was made to do work and over and above, was made to go and ask for money from her parents. Lastly, she has read observations of the learned Judge and contended that 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.
12. Notice is served to the other side. No one is present on behalf of the respondents – accused.
13. Heard learned APP for the appellant State. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. As per Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code, presence of main ingredients i.e. instigation, provocation and abetment in the commission of the offence is required. In the present case, prosecution has failed to prove that due to dowery the deceased was meted out harassment and cruelty by the respondents – accused.
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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 respondents – 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.
17. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 3.7.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Sessions Case No.79 of 1996, acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed.
Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks