1. Though served, but no one is appearing on behalf of the respondent. Today, the Appeal is taken up for hearing.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.4.1994 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No.66 of 1991, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
3. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that the accused person caused mental and physical harassment to the deceased and the accused had beaten the deceased and the accused prevented the deceased to go at her parental home. Therefore, as a last resort, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set her at fire and died. It is alleged that the accused misbehaved with the deceased and therefore, the attitude on the part of the accused, resulted into committing suicide. Therefore, the offence under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.66 of 1991. The trial was initiated against the respondent - accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 10 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. On the defence side, three witnesses were examined.
5. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 13.4.1994.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP for the appellant - State submitted that the deceased committed suicide due to ill-treatment meted out by the accused. She further submitted that the deceased died due to burn injuries and the case history stated in the case papers by Dr. Mahadevbhai as well as the dying declaring of the deceased recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The Head Constable recorded the statement of deceased in the presence of Medical Officer. Therefore, as per her submission, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused. She submitted that the deceased stated in her dying declaration about cruelty on the part of the deceased. She further submitted that from the record, it appears that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and therefore, as a last way, the deceased committed suicide and died. She further submitted that the from the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and the deceased was beaten by the accused. Therefore, she submitted that the ingredients of Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are established and thereby, the aspects of instigation or provocation on the part of the accused are proved. But the learned Sessions Judge has not properly evaluated the evidence led before him and wrongly acquitted the accused. As per his submission, the learned trial Judge without appreciating the evidence on record, wrongly acquitted the accused person and therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present Appeal and the order of conviction to the accused may be passed.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. I have perused the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the trial Court. The marriage span of the deceased and accused was of 8 years and from the evidence of D.W.1 Dr., Laxmanbhai Dutt, it appears that the deceased was suffering from schizophrenia and depression. The deceased was admitted in his hospital for medical treatment and she was given treatment for some mental illness. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it appears that the deceased used to appear depressed and confused and there were instances when she would not pick up her son even when he was crying. It also appears that the evidence produced on record, do not prove the case of the prosecution that the accused meted out cruelty on the deceased and thereby, the abetment of the accused in committing suicide by the deceased is proved. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 498(A), 306 are not established against the accused person. I have perused the provisions of Section 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the case against the accused. Learned Sessions Court referred the case in true manner. Therefore, it can be said that due to schizophrenia and depression, the deceased committed suicide and died. Therefore, the offence alleged against the accused person is not proved and therefore, learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused.
9. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. Thus, from the evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. It is also a 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 reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
"...
This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
11. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
12. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against her.
13. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
14. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K.
SAIYED, J.) ynvyas Top