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 06.11.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1992, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the charges alleged against her. Against the said Judgment, the appellant – State has filed present Appeal against respondent – original accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the respondent was mother in law of the deceased Ranjanben, wife of Badarji Dahyabhai Thakor. It is alleged that the respondent – accused was giving mental as well as physical torture to the deceased and thereby she instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is alleged that on 26.4.1991 at 7.30 O'clock the victim poured kerosene on her and burnt herself, and during the treatment, at 12.40 hours she has expired. Therefore, the complaint has been filed against the respondent – accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P. Code.
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 Metropolitan Magistrate. 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 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 Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges levelled against her.
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. Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat and Ms. Bhoomi Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the respondent – 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 the dying declaration, it clearly appears that due to physical and mental harassment by the respondent and on instigation, the deceased had poured kerosene on her and she herself burnt. She has contended that from the oral version of Executive Magistrate, the dying declaration is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Looking to the evidence of witnesses and the panchnama, it clearly appears that the deceased has committed suicide at the instance of respondent – accused and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed an error in holding that this is a case of accident. 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 her. 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, appearing on behalf of respondents, has supported the Judgment and order of the learned trial Judge. She has contended that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the main ingredients of Sections 107 & 108 of I.P. Code. She has contended that the main ingredients of provision of law is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned Judge has rightly observed that the dying declaration is not proved beyond reasonable. She has contended that the learned Judge has considered the oral and the documentary evidence produced on the record and after considering the same, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges alleged against her and, therefore, no interference may be called for.
9. From the observation of the trial Court it is clearly established that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The yadi was sent to the Executive Magistrate, informing him that during preparation of tea the victim has received burns injuries and thereafter the dying declaration was received by the Executive Magistrate. The trial Court has also observed that before taking dying declaration, the Executive Magistrate has not obtained any opinion from the concerned Medical Officer as to whether the victim is conscious and is sound state of mind and is in a position to speak and understand properly. Even during the cross examination the Executive Magistrate has not disclosed the mental and physical condition of the deceased. Therefore the learned Judge has rightly observed that the dying declaration is not trustworthy and reliable. Looking to the evidence of Executive Magistrate, I am of the opinion that the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate is not trustworthy, relevant and acceptable. 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 06.11.1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 159 of 1992, 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