Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1172 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Jayaba Natubha Jadeja

2016-06-24

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 12.5.2005 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2003. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the accused and Kiratba both were staying in the same street at village Muli. It is alleged that the accused were frequently quarreling with deceased Kiratba on the ground of pouring water and swiping the 'falia' and were mentally torturing the deceased by taunting her and due to such torture, deceased Kiratba had, on 14.5.2003 when there was nobody in the house, poured kerosene on herself and committed suicide. Accordingly, the complaint to that effect came to be lodged by the complainant. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet 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 10 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as panchnama of scene of offence Exh.13, inquest panchnama Exh.14, P.M. Note of the deceased Exh. 16, original complaint Exh.21 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. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. L.R. 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 ample evidence of the husband of the deceased, son as well as neighbour available on record, learned trial Court has erred in being led away by the fact that the complaint was lodged after about 15 days from the date of incident and, therefore, learned trial Court did not believe the depositions of the witnesses and wrongfully acquitted the accused as such. Learned APP has argued that deceased Kiranba herself has made oral dying declaration before neighbours Pravinsinh Jadeja and Bhavansinh Jadeja, PW 4 and PW 5 respectively, but learned trial Court did not believe the same. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondent is required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Ms. Amrita Ajmera, learned Advocate for the respondent 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. Ms. Amrita Ajmera further submitted that there is no iota of evidence to link the accused with the crime. She submitted that the case is also fatal for lodging the complaint late for about 15 days from the date of occurrence. She has argued that evidence of near relatives are hearsay and none of the near relatives' evidence linked the accused with the crime in question. She further argued that though the prosecution came with the story that the deceased made oral dying declaration before the two witnesses i.e. Pravinsinh Govubha Jadeja and Bhavansinh Prabhatsinh Jadeja who turned hostile, but they deposed that the deceased never made any such declaration before them. She, therefore, submitted that story of dying declaration put forth by the prosecution is not proved. She, therefore, submitted that story of dying declaration put forth by the prosecution is not proved. She has argued that this case was initially on the day of occurrence itself, upon the information given by her husband Surubha Jadeja, the concerned police registered the offence as Accidental Death Case No. 13/2002 and the police continued to investigate the same as Accidental Death upto 29.5.2003 and thereafter surprisingly, the nephew of the deceased who was residing far away from the place of occurrence, emerged as the complainant and lodged the complaint against the present respondents alleging that due to their harassment, the deceased has committed suicide which is rightly not believed by the learned trial Court. In her submission, therefore, 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 Ms. Amrita Ajmera, 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. As per the prosecution version, the present respondents are neighbours of deceased Kiratba and they were frequently harassing her as regards to keeping the street clean as well as pouring water, due to which on 14.5.2003 the deceased poured kerosene on herself and committed suicide. 8.1 As per deposition of Dr. Minesh Harivadan Khatri Exh. 15 who carried out autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 14.5.2003 around at 5.00 O'clock in the evening and as per his information, the deceased died due to extensive burn injuries over her body. The witness stated that he has treated the deceased when she was brought to the hospital by Bhavansinh Jadeja. The witness stated that at the time of admission, the deceased herself given history that she herself poured kerosene on her person and sat her on fire and she was conscious at the relevant time and she received third degree burn injuries on her person, ultimately, she died during the treatment on the same day. The witness stated that at the time of admission, the deceased herself given history that she herself poured kerosene on her person and sat her on fire and she was conscious at the relevant time and she received third degree burn injuries on her person, ultimately, she died during the treatment on the same day. Taking into consideration his evidence as well as other evidence on record, the prosecution has successfully established that the death of the deceased was the result of suicide. 8.2 PW 3 - Surubha Govubha Jadeja Exh.22, who is husband of the deceased, has deposed that he did not lodge the complaint for about 15 days as he is having children and threat given to him but he has not given any description as to who gave threat to him. However, on the day of incident also, this witness gave statement before the concerned police wherein he has narrated that on the day of incident, he was on duty as he was serving as driver in ST Corporation and while he was on duty, he came to know regarding the incident and he visited the hospital where he found his wife to be dead. The witness stated that he shown his doubt as the day before yesterday prior to the incident, there was quarrel between her wife and neighbours regarding pouring water in the street, due to which, she might have committed suicide and, therefore, Accidental Death inquiry was instituted by the concerned police. However, during the course of deposition, the witness has made lots of improvements in his deposition and he has made irrelevant and inconsistent deposition. On evaluation of the deposition of this witness, if it may be believed, then also on the face of it, his deposition is hearsay in nature as he himself has admitted that he has never witnessed any quarrel between the deceased and the respondents. 8.3 PW 4 and PW 5 have been examined and they were declared hostile. In their depositions, PW 4 and PW 5 have deposed that there was no conversation with the deceased by them and the deceased did not give any dying declaration naming the present respondents before them. 8.4 PW 7 who is son of the deceased has deposed that on the day of incident, he was not at his house. In their depositions, PW 4 and PW 5 have deposed that there was no conversation with the deceased by them and the deceased did not give any dying declaration naming the present respondents before them. 8.4 PW 7 who is son of the deceased has deposed that on the day of incident, he was not at his house. The witness stated that he visited the hospital and he has suspicion that the because of harassment given by the respondents, the deceased might have committed suicide. 8.5 On overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, indisputably, the complainant has lodged the complaint after about 15 days from the date of incident. Not only that the husband of the deceased on the day of incident gave statement which came to be treated by the concerned police as accidental death and during the course of investigation of accidental death, the police investigated the same as accidental death. Thereafter, as the complaint was lodged by the nephew of the deceased after 15 days, the Investigating Officer investigated the offence as alleged in the aforesaid complaint and recorded statements of various witnesses. However, on overall analysis of their evidence, none of the witnesses have stated that the present respondents have harassed the deceased constantly for about 7 to 8 years and even on the day or prior to the day of incident, there was quarrel, due to which the deceased got excited or received inducement to drive her to commit suicide. Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the complaint after 15 days from the date of incident and even the prosecution story of oral dying declaration before PW 4 and PW 5 also failed to prove and from the evidence of son and husband of the deceased also, nothing is emerging out to connect the accused with the crime in question. In view of the above nature of evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that deceased had committed suicide as the present respondents subjected to her cruelty and put her in such a situation which drives her to commit suicide. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent 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.