State Of Gujarat vs Hasmukhbhai Laljibhai Solanki

R.P.Dholaria, J

The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2010

rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.27 of 2009, whereby the present respondent-original accused was

acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPCâ€​ for short).

The case of the prosecution is that a complaint is filed by the father of victim-deceased Naynaben. It is the case of the complainant that marriage

of her daughter Nayna took place with present accused two years ago. It is also the case of the complainant that as and when his daughter used to

come to her parental house, she complained that accused used to give her mental and physical torture and once it was complained that accused had

beaten her and as such has tortured her physically. The accused also told his daughter that he did not like her. However, the complainant and his wife

persuaded deceased and sent her back to her matrimonial home. It is also stated by the complainant that lastly on 06.01.2009, when his daughter came

to his house, she told that mental and physical torture given by the accused has become unbearable to her. However, again the complainant persuaded

her and sent her back to her matrimonial home, but on 08.01.2009, the complainant received a phone call from the father of the accused that they are

bringing his daughter Nayna to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad as she sustained some injuries. On asking about the injuries, father of the accused replied

that while she was crossing the railway track, she dashed with the train. During the treatment on 19.01.2009, the daughter of the complainant

succumbed to injuries. On these facts, a complaint was filed by the complainant with Joravarnagar Police Station. The police after investigation charge

sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him.

At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the

respondent-accused.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.10.2010 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge,

Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.27 of 2009, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani has taken this Court through entire records and proceedings and read over the evidence of material witnesses and

argued that though the prosecution fully established that deceased was harassed by her husband and she was constantly meted out with cruelty as the

respondent-accused was having affair with another woman and that evidence is brought on record from the mouth of complainant and other witnesses

and her suicidal act is also proved from the eyes of eye-witnesses, the learned trial court has wrongfully acquitted the respondent-accused and

therefore, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be converted into conviction.

On the other hand, Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no iota of evidence to link the

respondent-accused with the crime in question. The complaint is lodged after about 13 days from the date of occurrence of incident and the evidence

of the complainant-father of the victim is also not satisfactory. In his cross-examination, he clearly admitted that her daughter- deceased was happily

residing and lastly when the complainant visited the house of the deceased, at that time she had not at all complained about any sort of ill-treatment

from her husband-accused. Similarly, he also admitted that he was regularly talking with the deceased on mobile phone, but there was nothing unusual.

Learned advocate Ms. Ajmera further pointed out that as per the evidence of eye-witness-railway driver and other evidence on record, this is a clear

case of accidental death rather than suicidal death and learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused. Similarly, sister of the

deceased as well as railway employees clearly stated during Accidental Death Inquiry that as she was walking parallel to the railway line, due to

accident she got injured.

As per the prosecution version, the victim-Naynaben got married with the respondent-accused for about two years prior to the date of incident and

as the accused had affair with another woman, he was harassing the victim-deceased and treating her with cruelty due to which on 08.01.2009, she

committed suicide by throwing herself on the railway track and thereby the accused committed offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and

323 of the IPC.

This Court has perused the impugned judgment and order as well as evidence of material witnesses. The records and proceedings clearly indicates

that the complaint was belatedly lodged after about 13 days from the date of incident. There was an Accidental Death Inquiry wherein the same

witness stated before the police that as the deceased was walking parallel to the railway track due to which she got injury and subsequently, it appears

that the case alleged to have been filed as if the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused due to which the deceased committed suicide.

The Autopsy of deceased carried out by a Panel of two Doctors indicates only head injury as well as scapula injuries over the body of the

deceased and overall body of the deceased was found integrated. There was no separation of body, even though as per the say of the complainant

side, 4 to 5 bogies of the train passed over the body of the deceased, though no such injury was found over her person. The history clearly indicates

that the deceased dashed with the running train due to which she got head as well as scapula injuries and thereafter, the deceased remained as indoor

patient for about 11 days.

The evidence of complainant namely Mr.Kamabhai Khengarbhai Jagethiya, though in his Examination in Chief, deposed totally in conformity with

the complaint, but in his cross-examination, he admitted that prior to the date of incident, when he visited his daughter-deceased, at that time, she did

not complain about anything. He also admitted that there was regular talk between the deceased and his family members, but nothing unusual was

found. Precisely, in view of his deposition and cross-examination, his entire complaint gets washed away and he has clearly admitted that the

deceased had stayed only for about three months at her matrimonial home.

The learned trial court while dealing with the evidence on record, more particularly in paragraph-8 as well as subsequent paragraphs, elaborately

dealt with the evidence on record and clearly recorded the finding that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that death of deceased was a

suicidal one. Similarly, in view of depositions, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that deceased was treated with cruelty so as to establish the

offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC.

The learned trial court while answering the point of determination, recorded elaborate reasons and the complaint was lodged after about 13 days

from the occurrence of incident and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 323 of the IPC.

In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, while recording the reasons and while answering the points of determination, the learned trial court has

elaborately dealt with each of the evidence led by prosecution and nothing is emerging out to connect the present respondent-accused with the crime

in question and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused which calls for no interference. Therefore, present appeal being

devoid of any merits deserves to be rejected.

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. I do

not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned decision as it cannot be said to be either perverse or not borne out from the facts of the

case. The State has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view in this matter. Hence, this appeal sans merit is required to be

dismissed.

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 05.10.2010 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge,

Surendranagar in Sessions Case No.27 of 2009, acquitting the respondent-accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the

trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.