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 13.7.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhangadhra, in Sessions Case No.1 of 1999, 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 on the ground of dowry from the deceased and the accused had beaten the deceased. Therefore, as a last resort, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and 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 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.1 of 1999. The trial was initiated against the respondents accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 8 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 respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order as aforesaid.
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. He submitted that there is direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. He further submitted that the deceased Manjulaben was married with accused No.1 before five years from the date of incident. It is alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical torture by the respondents on account of demand of dowry. He further submitted that in the complaint, it is stated that accused No.1 demanded money from the complainant for purchase of scooter and as the complainant did not satisfy his demand of scooter, he started to torture the deceased and the deceased was beaten by the accused. He further stated that even in the dying declaration, the deceased stated the fact that she committed suicide due to cruelty on the part of the accused. He also submitted that before two days from the incident, the accused No.1 went to the house of complainant and demanded money for purchase of scooter. He further stated that the evidence at Exhibit 28 and panchnama at Exhibit 9 are reliable and trustworthy evidence. But the lower Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused of the charges. Therefore, he prays to allow this Appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and award of acquittal passed by the lower Court.
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. From the evidence of P.W.1 Jenaji Bhikhaji and P.W.2 Mayaba, it appears that there was no any kind of mental or physical harassment to the deceased by the accused. The P.W.2 admitted that her daughter Manjula told her that she got burn injury when she was making tea and deceased was not harassed by the accused nor was not beaten by the accused nor the accused made demand dowry. I have perused the other evidence of witnesses produced on record, but from their evidence, nothing is come out against the accused with regard to the allegations as alleged. The dying declaration recorded at Exhibit 24 by the Executive Magistrate, wherein the deceased herself stated that due to burst of stove, she got burn injury and at that time, her husband was sleeping. Therefore, it is crystal clear that it is an accident and deceased in her dying declaration, has not stated about any kind of harassment or torture on the part of the accused and therefore, she was compelled to commit suicide. The statement of the deceased recorded by the Constable showing different fact and it creates doubt about thumb marking, physical condition of the deceased etc. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused after appreciating the evidence on record.
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.)