Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1063 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Narpatbhai Jethiabhai Vasava

2015-10-17

RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2004 by the learned Fast Track Court and Joint District Judge, Bharuch dated 05.03.2005 recording acquittal of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 306, 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, on the grounds stated in the judgment. 2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follow: "2.1 The deceased daughter of the complainant was married to the Respondent No. 1 about 10 to 12 years before the incident. The said marriage was love marriage. However, there was some matrimonial discord with regard to child and ultimately it is alleged by the complainant father that the harassment was caused to the deceased daughter of the complainant and therefore she committed suicide on 07.08.2002. Therefore, the complainant lodged complaint, which has been registered being FIR C.R. No.I-90 of 2002 with Ankleshwar Rural Police Station. 2.2 After investigation was over, the charge-sheet was filed and as the offence was triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court Thereafter, learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch proceeded with the trial. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the respondent-accused persons, the prosecution examined the witnesses including the complainant and also produced documentary evidence which shall be referred to in the judgment hereinafter. 2.3 After recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch recorded the further statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.4 After hearing the learned APP as well as the learned Advocate for the accused, the learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch recorded the acquittal of the accused." 3. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed on the grounds stated in detail in the memo of appeal, inter alia, that the learned Joint District Judge, Bharuch has committed error in appreciation of material and evidence on the record. 4. Heard learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the applicant-State and learned Advocate Shri Shakeel Qureshi for the Respondent-accused persons. 5. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani referred to the reasons recorded by the Court below for the acquittal and also referred to the testimony of witnesses including the complainant father at Exh. 13 and two dying declarations at Exh.20 and Exh.44. Heard learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the applicant-State and learned Advocate Shri Shakeel Qureshi for the Respondent-accused persons. 5. Learned APP Shri H.L. Jani referred to the reasons recorded by the Court below for the acquittal and also referred to the testimony of witnesses including the complainant father at Exh. 13 and two dying declarations at Exh.20 and Exh.44. He also referred to the panchnama of the scene of offence at Exh.18 and tried to submit that the dying declarations have not been relied upon by the Court below, as they do not inspire confidence. However, he submitted that the panchnama of the scene of offence at Exh.18 clearly suggests that it may not be an accident and therefore he submitted that the harassment was caused to the deceased for which, there was some settlement. He therefore submitted that this aspect has not been appreciated by the Court below. Though, it has not relied upon the dying declarations and recorded acquittal. Therefore, the present appeal. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Shakeel Qureshi for the accused persons has referred to the papers and submitted that both the dying declarations at Exh.20 and Exh.44 referred to the aspect of accidental death. He further submitted that in the vardhi also refers to the aspect of accidental death. He therefore submitted that as a basic criteria it could be an accidental death, which rules out the possibility of suicide and therefore, it cannot be said to be erroneous. He further submitted that the dying declarations have not been relied upon, as they have been stated to be not inspiring confidence. He therefore, submitted that there is no evidence by which it could be said that the charges leveled for the offences are proved. He submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the harassment, except only the bare words of the complainant father, which also, he had not stated before the police initially. He submitted that considering the scope of Section378 and the acquittal appeal, the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below, may not be disturbed. 7. In view of these rival submissions and having perused the material and evidence on the record, it is evident that two dying declarations refer to the aspect of the accidental death. Further, the same have not been relied upon by the Court below. 7. In view of these rival submissions and having perused the material and evidence on the record, it is evident that two dying declarations refer to the aspect of the accidental death. Further, the same have not been relied upon by the Court below. Therefore, if they are not considered, there is no other evidence with regard to the harassment or ill-treatment, which could be termed as cruelty. Further, if the dying declarations are considered, it rules out the possibility of suicide, as it has been clearly stated by the deceased herself about accidental death. Moreover, the doctor who examined the victim, initially he has not been examined nor the medical case papers were placed on the record, where perhaps the history given by the victim to the doctor could have been recorded. However, ultimately the same has not been come on record. I left it here. 8. Therefore, in view of broad guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the scope of Section 378 while dealing with the acquittal appeals. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in a judgment reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 in the case of Chandrappa and Ors., v. State of Karnataka, has laid down broad guidelines suggesting that the parameters or the aspects which need to be considered before reversing the order of acquittal, as the order of acquittal reinforced the presumption of innocence of the accused. Further, the same view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and reconsidered again in a subsequent judgment including observations made in a judgment reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, has dealt with this aspect and it has been observed that, "If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 9. In the facts of the case and as discussed herein above, on appreciation and scrutiny of evidence, the Court below has recorded the reasons for the acquittal, which cannot be said to be erroneous. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings and conclusion arrived by the Court below on appreciation of material and evidence and it does not called for any interference in the present appeal. 10. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings and conclusion arrived by the Court below on appreciation of material and evidence and it does not called for any interference in the present appeal. 10. It is in these circumstances, present appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinabove and accordingly stands dismissed. Record and proceedings, be sent back to the Court below forthwith.