Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1263 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Vallabhabhai Amrabhai Balva

2016-07-07

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present appeal, under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.11.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 13th Fast Track Court, Gondal, Camp at Upleta in Sessions Case No. 09 of 2001, whereby, the learned trial judge has acquitted the original accused-the respondent herein, of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of the respondent with deceased-Savitaben was solemnized six years prior to the date of alleged incident and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with one boy named Harsh. Initially for three years, their marriage life was running smooth, but thereafter, respondent started giving physical and mental torture to deceased because the deceased-Savitaben suspected that respondent was having illicit relation with another lady. Further, during her marriage life, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the respondent-husband and due to which she used to return to her parental home and after settling the issue, she was again sent to her matrimonial home Because of this constant harassment, the deceased-Savitaben got fed up and committed suicide on 10.11.2000 by hanging herself. Thereafter, she was immediately transferred to Upleta Government Hospital for treatment, where she succumbed to the injury. P.M. was carried out and doctor stated that her death was caused due to hanging. A complaint was filed by the complainant-Jivanbhai Ranabhai Vankar on 11.11.2000. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Upleta and Criminal Case No. 805 of 2000 was registered. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the Additional Sessions Court, Gondal as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 09 of 2001. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined about 21 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 4. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined about 21 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 22.11.2005. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 6. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP and Mr. Rajesh K. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent. 7. Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP has drawn attention of Court to the impugned and order as well as paper book and argued that the learned trial Court has not property considered the fact that the deceased-Savitaben had committed suicide because respondent-husband was keeping illicit relation with another woman. He further argued that the prosecution has established its case against the respondent-accused under Section 306 of the IPC by adducing oral as well as well documentary evidences on record. Learned APP contended that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also submitted by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting respondent for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. It is also submitted by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting respondent for the alleged offence under Section 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. Learned APP has reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal and has argued that though there was evidence on record, learned Trial Judge has recorded the findings contrary to the evidence on record. He has also contended that though the prosecution witnesses who are near relatives have supported the case of the prosecution, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused which is not in accordance with law and evidence on record and urged that present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order of acquittal be converted into conviction. 8. On the contrary, Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned advocate for the respondent argued that there is no iota of evidence available on record to link the respondent with the crime and he has supported the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has argued that none of the witnesses, who are near relatives of the deceased did not have any information as to whether the respondent was having any illicit relation with another woman or not. Further, even if letter addressed to PW-13-Natahbhai Malabhai is perused, it can be established that the deceased had no terms with the parental home and the said letter is produced during the course of trial. If we further perused the aforesaid letter, it appears that the deceased has repeatedly stated that she was happy with the respondent-husband, but she ventilated only grievance that the her husband was keeping illicit relation with other lady. Mr. Shah further argued that the learned trial Judge while appreciating oral as well documentary evidence recorded sufficient finding and rightly granted acquittal, which does not call for any interference by this Court. He has further contended that the learned Trial Judge has made elaborate analysis and scrutiny of evidence on record and the Trial Court has found that the evidence contains exaggeration and contradictions. Consequently therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly not believed the evidence on record. Mr. He has further contended that the learned Trial Judge has made elaborate analysis and scrutiny of evidence on record and the Trial Court has found that the evidence contains exaggeration and contradictions. Consequently therefore, the learned Trial Judge has rightly not believed the evidence on record. Mr. Shah, learned advocate has taken this Court through the entire record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is just and proper and it cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed any error in acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. This Court has gone through the record and proceedings of learned trial court and perused the record. PW-2-Jivanbhai Ranabhai Makwana, is brother of the deceased and was serving as Assistant in the Postal Department. He deposed in his deposition that the deceased got married with the respondent for about 6 years prior to the date of incident. Initially, for about three years, they were happily residing and out of the said wedlock, one boy named Harsh was born. Thereafter, the respondent-husband used to treat her with cruelty and she was harassed and her husband would beat her. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that though he was informed about the fact that the respondent was having illicit relation with another woman, but he did not even care to know the name and address of any such woman and he had no information with regard to the same. PW-7-Danjibhai Ranabhai Makwana deposed in his deposition that deceased-Savita was his younger sister and the respondent-husband used to harass her because of illicit relation with another woman. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that after marriage, he never met deceased-Savitaben, till she committed suicide. PW-13-Nathabhai Malabhai, who is brother-in-law of the deceased-Savitaben deposed that he is residing at Savarkundala Road, Amreli. He further deposed that deceased-Savita got married with respondent for about six years prior to the incident. Further, deceased and respondent were quarreling on trivial and trifle issues and she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent because of her intervention in his personal matter such as illicit relation with another woman. He also deposed that he received one letter from the deceased, which was treated as Muddamal. Further, deceased and respondent were quarreling on trivial and trifle issues and she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent because of her intervention in his personal matter such as illicit relation with another woman. He also deposed that he received one letter from the deceased, which was treated as Muddamal. This Court has gone through the contents of the said letter though the said letter has not been proved in accordance with law, however, upon perusal of the said letter, it appears that the deceased' say in the letter is to some extent contradictory to each other. While, on one hand, she had stated that she was not getting favourable treatment from her in-laws, but at the same time also, she had stated in the said letter that she is happy at both the places i.e. her parental home as well as matrimonial home. No details worth the name regarding the illicit relation of the respondent with another woman has been mentioned in the said letter. 10. On overall analysis of evidence on record, as per the prosecution version, the respondent-husband was keeping illicit relation with another woman and because of which he used to beat and harass deceased and ultimately, she committed suicide by hanging herself. However, as per the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the deceased had relation with her real brother-in-law, as she had no parents. Therefore, the deceased wrote aforesaid letter to brother-in-law, however, the said letter has not been proved in accordance with law though the same was recovered during the course of investigation and was being treated as Muddamal. Even in the said letter also, general allegations are leveled and no details worth the name as regards illicit relation of the respondent with another woman has been mentioned. The evidence as narrated above of three near relatives are available on record. On scrutiny of their evidence, there appears no uniformity in their depositions and their depositions suffers from exaggerations, contradictions as well as if we read the same together, then the same are found in the nature of absolving the accused from the charges leveled against him. 11. The evidence as narrated above of three near relatives are available on record. On scrutiny of their evidence, there appears no uniformity in their depositions and their depositions suffers from exaggerations, contradictions as well as if we read the same together, then the same are found in the nature of absolving the accused from the charges leveled against him. 11. In this view of the matter, learned Trial Court has rightly not put any reliance over the oral testimony of aforesaid witnesses and rightly recorded that the evidence of aforesaid witnesses are not sufficient to record any finding against the respondent for conviction. The learned trial Judge has rightly recorded that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that deceased had committed suicide due to provocation, instigation and abetment, as deceased was driven out in such a condition that she left with no other option, but to commit suicide. Even otherwise also, the allegations are general in nature except illicit relation and what happened on 10.11.2000 is revealing from the records and proceedings and hence, proximate cause for the commission of suicide is also not forthcoming on record to link the respondent with the alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, learned Trial Court has also rightly not gone into presumption as provided under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act. 12. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and has gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State and learned advocate for the respondent. 13. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court find that the findings recorded by the 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 the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 14. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 14. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.