AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honorable Mr. Justice Z.K. Saiyed
By way of present revision application, filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 05th October, 2006 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2006 and further prayed to remand the matter for fresh trial.
The case of the complainant is that marriage of the daughter of the complainant, i.e. deceased Sabnam, was solemnized with respondent No. 3-original accused as per the custom of the society. After sometime when the deceased came back at her parental home, she complained that the respondent No. 2-original accused No. 1, i.e. sister-in-law, was quarreling with her and refused to go at her in-laws. She also stated that in absence of her husband, she was physically and mentally tortured. Thereafter, after executing writing not to harass the deceased and then only the deceased was sent at her in-laws. It is also the case of the complainant that on last makarsankranti prior to the incident, the deceased along with her husband came to her parental home and at that point of time, the complainant scolded the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, when on 22nd January, 2006 wife of the complainant telephoned at the in-laws place of the deceased, the respondent No. 2 lifted the phone and when it was asked for the deceased, the respondent No. 2 put down the receiver. Therefore, parents of the deceased rushed at in-laws place of the deceased. The brother-in-law of the deceased informed the complainant that the deceased had committed suicide by handing.
Therefore, a complaint to the said effect came to be filed with the Kadi Police Station and investigation came to be carried out. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of various related persons, drawn the panchnama of seen of offence, seized the muddamal article by drawing panchnama and as sufficient evidence were found the accused persons came to be arrested and charge-sheeted before the learned Magistrate.
Thereafter, charge was framed below Exhibit 1 against the respondent Nos. 2-7. The charge was read over and explained to them and they did not plead guilty to the offence alleged against them and claimed to be tried.
In order to bring home the charges leveled against the accused, prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in support of its case.
Thereafter, after completing the evidence of prosecution, further statement of the accused were recorded wherein they have denied the evidence of prosecution.
After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana vide impugned judgment and order dated 05th October, 2006 acquitted the accused persons from the charges leveled against them.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant-original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application.
Heard Mr. Mahesh Bhavsar, leaned counsel for the appellant, Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Amrish Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 - original accused.
Mr. Bhavsar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that the deceased was being abused and beaten by the accused persons. The deceased was harassed to such an extent that the deceased committed to suicide. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana was bad in law, unjust and improper. The learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused. He has further contended that looking to the postmortem note and evidence of other witnesses, it is established that due to cruelty meted out to the deceased, she had committed suicide. He has also contended that even writing was executed on Rs. 50/-Stamp Paper, which shows that the respondent Nos. 2 to 7-original accused harassed the deceased and therefore, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the Court concerned for fresh trial.
As against this, Mr. Amrish Pandya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7-original accused, contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana is absolutely just and proper and need not require any interference. He has further contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the present respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted them. The prosecution has failed to prove role of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 and therefore, present revision application deserves to be dismissed.
Mr. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1-State, states that respondent No. 1-State has not challenged the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused papers produced before me. It appears from the perusal of the papers and the evidence produced on record that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish the conduct of the respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Mere say of the complainant that deceased was harassed by the respondents-accused cannot be accepted. There is no evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. Even the writing executed by and between the parties is also not produced on record.
Hence, in view of above, present revision application is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 05th October, 2006 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2006 is hereby confirmed. Rule is discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.