[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 29.06.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1996, 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 Prabhaben, daughter of the complainant was solemnized with Bhagwanbhai Govindbhai, respondent. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused was not given any money for maintaining the house and the accused was giving mental and physical torture to Prabhaben. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 08.10.1995, the sister of accused Vijuben abused Prabhaben and on account of mental and physical torture by both, Prabhaben had poured kerosene on herself and thereby committed suicide. Therefore, complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Sections 498(A), 306 of I.P. Code before the Botad 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. Mr. K. P. Raval, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat. Though served, but nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
[7] 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.
[8] 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. He 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 Prabhaben had poured kerosene on herself 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 there was mental and physical harassment on the part of the accused. He has submitted that the ingredients of sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He has, therefore, contended that looking to 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. He, 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 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 anything about the conduct or mis-behaviour of the accused with the deceased. 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]
[10] 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 – 9 has clearly observed that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the deceased was harassed by the accused. No independent witnesses have been examined to support the case of the prosecution. From the oral evidence of the complainant, it appears that this witness has admitted in his cross- examination that there was no quarrel between the deceased and accused. It is also admitted by the complainant that the deceased has never complained to this witness regarding ill-treatment by accused and other accused. The P.W.3, who is neighbour of deceased, has disclosed in his cross-examination, that there was some quarrel between the accused and deceased. I have also gone through the evidence of the P.W.4, who is neighbour of accused and she has never disclosed that there was quarrel between the accused and deceased and accused was given ill-treatment to the deceased. P.W.5, the Deputy Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate examined at Ex.16, who has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. 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.
[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 respondents – 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 29.06.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1996 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