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 21.7.1995 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No.150 of 1993. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, the marriage of respondent – accused took place with the daughter of the complainant Madhuben before five months of the incident. On coming to know that character of the accused is doubtful the deceased informed her parents about the same. Therefore, accused was torturing and harassing her. The complainant told the accused to mend his character otherwise he will take his daughter to his house. On 14.7.1993 at around 2:30 p.m. the deceased Madhu consumed poisonous medicine and committed suicide due to torture and harassment meted out to her by present accused. Hence the complainant lodged the complaint.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused person was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed against him 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 person, to which the accused person not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.
7. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondent – accused as stated above.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.7.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No.150 of 1993 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
4. Heard Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She has contended that trial Court ought to have appreciated that the mother of the deceased has stated that the accused was beating the deceased though the accused had compromised and promised not to harass the deceased. She has contended that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the accused had illicit relations with one lady named Gitaben and this led the deceased to commit suicide.
5. She has contended that trial Court ought to have been appreciated that the deceased in the natural course would have told her mother and father about the illicit relation of the accused with Gitaben. She has contended that it ought to have been appreciated that Gitaben naturally would not accept such illicit relations.
6. She has contended that looking to the injury shown in Column No.17 of the chargesheet and from the evidence of the medical expert the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that from Ex.16, 17 and 19 it is proved that respondent accused provoked, instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Lastly, she has read the observations of the learned Judge and contended that observation of the learned Judge is not proper in eye of law and therefore, judgment and order of the learned Judge is required to be set aside.
7. Notice is served to the other side but no one is present on behalf of the respondent – accused.
8. Heard learned APP for the appellant – State. I have perused oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution. So far as case of the prosecution is concerned, it is based on the fact that accused was keeping illicit relations with one lady. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove illicit relations of respondent – accused with the lady beyond reasonable doubt. But the prosecution has failed to prove illicit relations of respondent accused with the lady. From crossexamination of the witnesses primafacie conduct and doubtful character of the respondent – accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. From contents of evidence of the complainant it is not proved that when he visited place of offence the deceased had uttered any word because of which she consumed poison. In absence of such evidence and from perusal of the order of the learned Judge I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly considered defence version and evidence of the prosecution.
9. 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.”
10. 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.
11. 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 respondent – 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.
12. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 21.7.1995 rendered in Sessions Case No.150 of 1993 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, acquitting the respondent – accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks