Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 931 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Jayantibhai Ladhabhai Koli

2015-09-22

RAJESH H.SHUKLA

body2015
Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 18/2003 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar dated 28th February, 2005 recording acquittal of the accused persons for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the appellant-State. 3. Learned APP Shri Jani referred to the material and record and pointedly referred to the testimony of witnesses including the complainant, PW-3 at Exh.25, Dr. Zala, PW-1 at Exh.15, medical evidence with regard to PM report and other evidence. Learned APP referred to the complaint, Exh.27 and submitted that the complainant, PW-3 in his testimony at Exh.26 has fully supported his complaint with regard to the harassment caused to the deceased. He emphasized that as stated by this witness, the deceased was harassed and ill-treated as the accused was having habit of liquor. It is clearly stated that because of such habit, he was beating and harassing the daughter of the complainant. He has further stated that therefore she had returned to the parental house and, thereafter, she was sent back on the assurance of the respondent-accused. He also referred to the medical evidence in the form of the testimony of Dr.Zala, PW-1, Exh.17 and PM report at Exh.18 and submitted that there were extensive burn injuries. He referred to Section 498A to support his submission with regard to the harassment, which could be termed as cruelty. He submitted that the explanation to Section 498A has been added to achieve legislative intention of curbing such social evil. Therefore he submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate material and evidence in proper perspective. 4. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeal deserves consideration. 5. As it transpires from the testimony of PW-3, Exh.26, there is an improvisation with regard to the incident. A close look at the cross-examination of this witness clearly suggests that at the most couple had strained relations but two families had cordial relations, which has been admitted. There is no complaint about the ill-treatment by other family members at the matrimonial house. A close look at the cross-examination of this witness clearly suggests that at the most couple had strained relations but two families had cordial relations, which has been admitted. There is no complaint about the ill-treatment by other family members at the matrimonial house. In fact, they were meetings over the social occasions and in fact for some issues, when the daughter of the complainant had returned to parental house, she was sent again to the matrimonial house with the intervention of the family members of both sides. This witness in the cross-examination has also admitted that when the first statement was recorded by the Police, he has not stated about any such ill-treatment including the liquor habit of the accused and beating the victim, the daughter of the complainant. It is also admitted that the daughter of the complainant used to visit parental house regularly. It has been stated that whenever she desired, she could come alone. There is no doubt about the suicide and extensive burn injuries resulting into death of the daughter of the complainant. However, every matrimonial discord does not necessarily attract the provisions of Section 498A of the IP Code. In other words, the harassment should be of such a nature that it would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IP Code. Further the object of Section 498A of the IP Code with regard to evil of dowry has to be considered. Section 498A by explanation clearly provides that harassment should be of such a nature which drives a women to commit suicide. In other words, it has to be such a nature that no option is left but to commit suicide. Again for the offence under Section 306 of the IP Code, mens rea is required to be established couple with the fact that whether any such abetment to commit suicide is with such an intention or not is required to be established. 6. Further the word 'suicide' means 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. Thus it requires an active act or direct act, which leaves the deceased to commit suicide as no option is left. 6. Further the word 'suicide' means 'Sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing', thus implying an act of self killing. Thus it requires an active act or direct act, which leaves the deceased to commit suicide as no option is left. Therefore, there has to be an evidence that situation was so created and the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide and such situation is created intentionally to push the deceased into such a situation to commit suicide. There is no such material and evidence placed on record. Therefore, the reasons recorded for the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Court below cannot be said to be erroneous much less perverse which would call for any interference. 7. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down broad guidelines in such acquittal appeals. Though there is no fetter on the power of the appellate court and court may in a given case appreciate and scrutinize the evidence. However as laid down in the broad guidelines, the order of acquittal requires to be considered with care and circumspection and every evidence has to be weighed carefully as the innocence of the accused is re-enforced with the order of acquittal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 has laid down the guidelines after considering various aspects. Also a useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Murugesan & Ors. v. State through Inspector of Police, reported in AIR 2013 SC 274 , wherein it has been observed referring to the scope of acquittal appeals under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that if the view taken by the trial court is possible view, it may not be disturbed merely because other view is also possible. Same view has been reiterated in another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mookkiah & Anr. v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu. Same view has been reiterated in another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mookkiah & Anr. v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu. In this judgment, it has been quoted from the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh & Anr., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 786 , - "Law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused..................... that if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal." 8. Therefore having regard to the aforesaid broad guidelines, the present appeal cannot be entertained and the impugned judgment and order recording acquittal by the Court below requires to be confirmed. 9. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.