Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1042 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Ramnik Shamji Gohil

2016-06-07

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.3.2005 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2002. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed the complaint on 8.2.2002 before Jamnagar City "A" Division Police Station stating the fact that his sister named Sunita has been married with Bipin Ramnikbhai before three and half years from the date of the incident. It is alleged that as and when she was visiting her parental house, she was complaining regarding ill-treatment and harassment from the respondents accused on petty grounds. It is alleged that as ill-treatment was beyond her control, she has committed suicide by consuming poisonous drug. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as yadi for conducting PM of the dead body Exh. 11, PM report Exh. 13, inquest panchnama Exh. 21, original complaint of the complainant Exh. 35, panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 48 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that though there is suicide note Exh. 49, learned trial Court failed to consider the same and learned trial Court ought to have believed suicide note and ought to have convicted the respondents accused. He submitted that the incident took place due to cruelty meted out to the deceased and as a result thereof, she committed suicide. He, therefore, submitted that learned trial Court could have taken the view that incident occurred due to ill-treatment given to the deceased and as a result thereof, the deceased committed suicide. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Nirav Thakkar, learned Advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Thakkar further submitted that there is no iota of evidence as near relatives i.e. brothers, sisters, aunt, grandmother and other relatives have not supported the case of the prosecution. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove as to who is the author of the suicide note at Exh. 49 and when suicide note was recovered, it was found in wiped condition and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly not believed Exh. 49. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Nirav Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Nirav Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. In order to bring home the guilt of the present respondents accused, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses wherein the brother of the deceased has lodged the complaint who has been examined as PW 3. It is pertinent to note that complainant - PW 3 who has lodged the complaint has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6, PW 8 and PW 9 though they are near relatives of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have deposed before the learned trial Court as if the accused are not involved in the offence. The neighbour has also been examined as PW 10, but nothing worth is coming out in favour of the prosecution. 8.1 In view of the aforesaid oral evidence, as none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the case of the prosecution rests upon the suicide note Exh. 49 which was recovered from the dead body while carrying out autopsy by the concerned Doctor which was recovered by the police during the course of investigation. Suicide note Exh. 49 reads as under. "Jai Siyaram I have taken this step because of harassment of father-in-law and mother-in-law. After the death of husband, both were giving lots of mental torture and they were abusing my relatives as they wish and were saying that they do not want to see her face. I am not responsible but my father-in-law and mother-in-law are and, therefore, I am compelled to take this step." 8.2 Though the aforesaid suicide note Exh. 49 was admitted as evidence in the deposition of Investigating Officer PW 13, Exh. 34, the Investigating Officer has deposed before learned trial Court that as some words were wiped out in water, the same are not legible. Indisputably, the prosecution has not examined the aforesaid suicide note Exh. 49 through the handwriting expert to establish that writing is either made by the deceased or it have been written at the instance of the deceased. Indisputably, the prosecution has not examined the aforesaid suicide note Exh. 49 through the handwriting expert to establish that writing is either made by the deceased or it have been written at the instance of the deceased. In absence thereof, merely the aforesaid suicide note Exh. 49 was produced, but the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the suicide note was written by the deceased either by proving through the handwriting expert or by any other means. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that learned trial Court has rightly not believed the suicide note Exh. 49. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. 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. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. 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. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.