Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1296 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Parul Mansukhbhai Patel

2016-07-12

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat, under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.3.2006, recorded by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No. 354 of 2004. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.12.1995 at about 11:15 a.m., Victim-Vaishali was preparing chapati, at that time, daughter of the landlord-respondent-accused No. 1 came there with prepared vegetable dish. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent No. 1 had administered some stupefying substance in the vegetable prepared by her. The victim ate the vegetable dish and she came under the influence of that substance and lost her consciousness and slept on the cot. At that time, respondent No. 2-Prashant entered the house and tried to molest her by placing his hand on the body of the complainant-Vaishali and therefore, she suddenly woke up, thereafter, the respondent No. 2 ran away from the scene of the offence. The respondent No. 1-Parul threatened her that if she informs anyone, she would defame her in society. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 328, 354, 452 and 506(1) read with Section 114 of the IPC was filed before Astodia Police Station. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which came to be committed to the learned trial Court. After conclusion of trial and hearing, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents from all the charges levelled against them. 3.1 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the 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 the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. 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 the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has 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. 6. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the 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 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 respondents. 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 trial 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 trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondents for the alleged offences under Sections 328, 354, 452 and 506(1) read with Section 114 of the IPC which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the impugned judgment as well as record and proceeding of learned trial Court and stated that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is required to be converted into conviction as such. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Amita Joshi, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the impugned judgment as well as record and proceeding of learned trial Court and stated that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is required to be converted into conviction as such. 7. On the other hand, Ms. Amita Joshi, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Bhavik Pandya, learned advocate for the respondents argued that the learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and rightly recorded the finding and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. She has further argued that there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the crime. She has further argued that victim has admitted in her cross-examination that respondent No. 1-Parul did not come to her house during the period of incident and she has further admitted that respondent No. 1 did not deliver any vegetable dish on the date of incident. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the judgment and rightly acquitted the accused-respondents, which calls for no interference. 8. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State and Ms. Amita Joshi, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Bhavik Pandya, learned advocate for the respondents. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment as well as record and proceedings of the learned trial Court, on overall analysis of the evidence on record, indisputably as per the prosecution case, on 6.12.1995, the accused in order to facilitate the marriage of victim with respondent No. 2, administered some stupefying substance in vegetable dish, thereafter, respondent No. 2 was molested the complainant and committed offences punishable under Sections 328, 354 read with Section 114 of the IPC. 10. In order to prove the guilt on the part of the present respondents, the prosecution examined for about 2 witnesses and also placed various documentary evidences before the learned trial Court. PW-1-Vaishaliben Vyas has deposed that on 6.12.1995, when she was at home, respondent No. 1 arrived at her home and delivered vegetable dish added with stupefying substance due to which, she became unconscious. At that time, she noticed that respondent No. 2 rubbed his hand on her private parts. PW-1-Vaishaliben Vyas has deposed that on 6.12.1995, when she was at home, respondent No. 1 arrived at her home and delivered vegetable dish added with stupefying substance due to which, she became unconscious. At that time, she noticed that respondent No. 2 rubbed his hand on her private parts. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that Astodia Police Station is situated at the distance of 5 minutes from her house. She has also admitted that there was dispute regarding rent of the premises and complaint was filed before the trial Court as well as before the Police Station and due to which, relations between present respondents and her family were not cordial. She has further admitted that due to strange relationship, on the day of incident, respondent No. 1 did not deliver any food. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that from 6.12.1995 to 15.12.1995, respondent No. 1 did not come to her house. The prosecution has examined only victim though other witnesses were cited in the chargesheet but none has been examined. Even the parents of the victim has also not been examined. In the result, the prosecution has raised the case of the victim on the sole testimony of victim. The victim herself has admitted in her cross-examination that there were strange relationship between the respondents and her family and due to which other criminal cases were also instituted against the present respondents and the present respondents also instituted criminal cases against the complainant side. In her cross-examination, she has also admitted that from 6.12.1995 to 15.12.1995, respondent No. 1 did not come to her house. In that view of the matter, the oral testimony and incident described by herself appears to be false itself. Not only that, but no other corroborative evidence in the nature of medical or any other sort of evidence has been produced by the prosecution. 11. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clearly emerging out that the prosecution has examined only victim though other witnesses were cited in the chargesheet but none has been examined. Even the parents of the victim has also not been examined. In the result, the prosecution raised the case of the victim on the sole testimony of victim. Even the parents of the victim has also not been examined. In the result, the prosecution raised the case of the victim on the sole testimony of victim. The victim herself has admitted in her cross-examination that there were strange relationship between the respondents and her family and due to which other criminal cases were also instituted against the present respondents and the present respondents also instituted criminal cases against the complainant side. In her cross-examination, she has also admitted that from 6.12.1995 to 15.12.1995, respondent No. 1 did not come to her house. In that view of the matter, the oral testimony and incident described by herself appears to be false itself. Not only that, but no other corroborative evidence in the nature of medical or any other sort of evidence has been produced by the prosecution. In view of the aforesaid nature of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the judgment of acquittal which requires no interference. 12. 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. 13. 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 them. 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. 14. 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.