The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 17.11.1992 rendered in Sessions Case No.119 of 1991 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498(A) and 114(A) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution case, the complainant, namely, Zinatben wife of Rehmanbhai is living at Mota-khutvada and deceased - Kulsumbibi is her daughter. Marriage of Kulsumbibi with accused No.1 took place before six to seven months of dated 23.5.1991. Since then Kulsum was residing at her in-laws house and she often used to visit the house of the complainant. During the month of Ramzan accused Nos.1 and 2 were beating and torturing Kulsum for household work so the complainant went to the house of accused to tell them not to torture her daughter because she was pregnant. To maintain peace between in-laws and Kulsum the complainant took her daughter to her house. Thereafter, after completion of Ramzan month brother-in-law (Jeth) Bababhai and his wife Bibiben, both came to complainant's house for carrying Kulsum. The complainant sent her daughter to in-law's house with them. On 23.5.1991, at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning Kulsum came to the house of the complainant so she told her to have tea and go thereafter. At that time, Kulsum told her mother with tears in her eyes that she has to go to Fair Price shop to purchase kerosene. The complainant asked her why she was having tears in her eyes and what problem she is having. Kulsum told her mother that lunch-box of her husband was not ready so her mother-in-law and husband quarreled with her and her husband left for Mahuva. Thereafter, at around 11:30 in noon sister of mother-in-law of Kulsum came to the complainant's house and informed her that her daughter has burnt and died. The complainant went to Kulsum house and saw that Kulsum was burnt and lying on the floor. Thereafter, the complainant went to Khutvada Police Station and lodged the complaint.
Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court the same was committed to the Sessions Court.
Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents - accused.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.11.1992 rendered in Sessions Case No.119 of 1991 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
Heard Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant - State. She has read charge Ex.4 and contended that the deceased is daughter of the complainant. The prosecution has examined mother, father and brother, three material witnesses. She has contended that looking to the allegations made against the respondents, the case is proved through oral version of the complainant, father and brother of the deceased. She has also read column No.17 of the postmortem note and contended that it prima-facie appears that the deceased committed suicide and carbon particles were found from inside the body of the deceased. It is contended that due to abetment, harassment and instigation made by the respondents - accused the deceased committed suicide.
She has contended that the learned Judge ought to have convicted the respondents accused for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with Section 114 and 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. She has contended that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove cruelty faced by the victim - Kulsumbibi. She has contended that the learned Judge failed to appreciate that the incident of suicide took place within seven years of marriage of Kulsumbibi and therefore, presumption under Section 113(A) would be raised in favour of the prosecution.
The notice is served to the respondents but none is present in the Court.
Heard learned APP for the appellant - State. I have gone through the papers produced on record. When it is the case of prosecution that the respondents have committed offence under Sections 498(A) and 114(A) of the Indian Penal Code, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove main ingredients of Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution has examined complainant and tried to establish its case. But as per evidence of complainant the deceased was pregnant. In light of provisions of law and from the evidence of complainant the deceased has never conveyed her that respondents are harassing her and due to their cruelty and torture she is tired. From the cross-examination of the complainant it appears that Kulsumbibi and her husband were regularly visiting the house of the complainant and she has never filed any complaint. The complainant has also admitted that she does not know what was written by the police in complaint. Simply police told her to make her thumb impression on the complaint and she did accordingly. Even from the evidence of the father of the deceased he has also not proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He has admitted that there was good relation between the husband and wife. The evidence of the complainant, father of the deceased and brother are totally contradictory in manner. They are unable to establish that mental torture was given to the deceased by the respondents. Looking to the evidence of the witnesses they have failed to prove case of the prosecution and reasoned order is passed by the learned Judge.
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 re-appreciate 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."
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.
It is settled legal position that in an 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 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.
In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 17.11.1992 rendered in Sessions Case No.119 of 1991 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, acquitting the respondents - accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks Top