1. Though served, no one is appearing on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, today, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. This Court passed order dated 18.9.1996, whereby the Appeal is dismissed qua respondent No.3.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.1.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana Camp at Patan, in Sessions Case No.178 of 1994, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
3. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that the accused persons caused mental and physical harassment to the deceased and the accused had beaten the deceased. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide by setting 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), 306 and 114 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, respondents were arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against them 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.178 of 1994. The trial was initiated against the respondents accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accu sed, the prosecution has examined, in all 15 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
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 respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 10.1.1996.
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 due to illtreatment meted out by the accused upon the deceased, the deceased committed suicide and setting her at fire. She submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.1, Medical Practitioner, who had carried out the post mortum of the deceased, it appears that the deceased committed suicide by setting her at fire. Even from the evidence of P.W.2, the same is transpired. Even in the inquest panchnama, the total situation of burnt body of deceased is prescribed and therefore, it appears that the deceased committed suicide by setting her at fire. She further stated that evidence of the complainant states that the accused gave mental and physical harassment to the deceased and therefore, the deceased complained to the complainant about harassment caused by the accused. She further submitted that the from the evidence of sister of deceased, it reflects that the accused taunted the deceased about the child, as the deceased had not given birth any child. As per her submission, looking to the evidence produced on record, it clearly appears that due to harassment caused by the accused, the deceased adopted the way of suicide and died. She further submitted that even the witnesses examined during the trial, are rustic and simply villagers and therefore, there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. She, therefore, submitted that the accused committed offence as alleged and they are required to be convicted as the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused, without appreciating the evidence on record.
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. Looking to the evidence recored before the trial Court, it appears that there is not a single evidence, which shows that the accused caused mental or physical harassment to the deceased. From the place of offence, one rifle was found, but there is no evidence which shows that the said rifle was used in the commission of offence. The dead body of the deceased was found on the roof which was burnt, but it is not established that how the roof was burnt and the deceased committed suicide is not also established. The father of the complainant stated in his evidence about cruelty caused by the accused upon deceased, but the contents stated by the complainant in his complaint and the contents stated by the complainant in his oral evidence are not corroborated. Therefore, it can be that the complainant is not sure about the incident as to how the deceased committed suicide and what is the reason, which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of Section 498(A) and 306 are not established against the accused. It can be said from the record, that there was an accident and due to such accident, the deceased was fired and died.
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 appellantState. 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 rewrite 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.
ynvyas (Z.K. SAIYED, J.)