AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.P.Dholaria, J
The appellant â€" State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment
and order dated 19.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Khambhaliya in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2007,
acquitting the respondents accused for the offence punishable Sections 498(A), 306 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased got married to respondent No.3 accused for about five months prior to the date of incident and
since she did not like her husband, he was not co-habitating with her and even the respondents accused used to harass and treat her with cruelty. As a
result, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. Thereby, the respondents accused committed an offence punishable under Sections
498(A), 306 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
After registration of complaint, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned
Magistrate. As the case was triable by learned Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the
charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence.
3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating evidence on record, the learned trail court delivered the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by
said judgment and order dated 19.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Khambhaliya in Sessions Case No.
105 of 2007 acquitting the respondents accused, the appellant â€" State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani has taken this Court through the entire record & proceedings and argued that the parents
and brother of the deceased clearly deposed that the deceased did not like her husband â€" respondent No.3 accused, due to which, the respondents
accused used to harass her and treat her with cruelty, which led her to commit suicide. Learned APP has further argued that though their say is duly
getting corroboration from the evidence on record, the learned trial court recording the finding of embellishments, improvements and contradictions,
discarded their evidence and wrongly acquitted the respondents accused.
On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. P. M. Lakhani for the respondents has argued that the entire evidence of the parents as well as brother of
the deceased is in the nature of hearsay and there is no any direct evidence as regards to any sort of harassment or cruelty to the deceased. Learned
advocate has further argued that the main thrust of the evidence of the complainant and witnesses is that as the deceased did not like her husband, the
husband was not co-habitating and consummating the marriage, though the contrary evidence is emerging out from the record that she was found to
be pregnant. Learned advocate has also argued that the parents and brother of the deceased have made lot of improvements and embellishments
during the course of their depositions and therefore, the learned trial court rightly discarded their evidence.
This Court has minutely gone through the entire record & proceedings, impugned judgment and order as well as evidence of material witnesses.
This Court is taken through the evidence of parents and brother of the deceased. The same evidence they have led inter alia making certain
material improvements thereon as regards the harassment and cruelty which they had not stated before the police. On overall evaluation of their
evidence, it is in the nature of hearsay. No details are emerging out as regards to any sort of harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased.
General and vague allegations are emerging out from their evidence. They deposed that the husband of the deceased was not co-habitating and not
consummating the marriage, though the contrary evidence is emerging out from the record that she was found to be pregnant.
On overall evaluation of the entire evidence on record, no direct evidence in the nature of dying declaration or any other sort of evidence is
available on record. The entire case of the prosecution is on the strength of the statement alleged to have been made by the deceased before her
parents and brother and that too is not consistent. There appears no uniformity in their evidence. Their evidence is also self contradictory.
In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents
accused of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in
recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same.
It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, 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.
In view of above, no case is made out. The appeal being devoid of merits deserved dismissal and is dismissed.
The record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.