Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1431 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Mayurbhai Harshadbhai Rathod

2016-07-21

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 29.4.2006 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2003. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that deceased was wife of accused No. 1 and remaining accused are in-laws of the deceased. It is alleged that accused No. 1 married with deceased Jignaben on 28.2.2000 and after the marriage, she was staying at her matrimonial home at Bombay. It is alleged that on 11.9.2002 telephonic message came from Valsad which was given by Ashwinbhai and the said telephonic message was responded by the grandfather-in-law of the deceased and thereafter the phone was given Jagdishbhai wherein it was stated that deceased died because she fallen from Firozpur Janta Express train near Bagwada. 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 6 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as original complaint Exh. 33, inquest panchnama Exh. 43, railway ticket Exh. 44, panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 45 etc. 3.2. At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 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. 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 learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongfully acquitted the accused though ample evidence is available on record for the alleged offences. He submitted that though father as well as sister of the deceased have supported the case of the prosecution and as per their version, the deceased was subjected to cruelty for trivial issues as regards to household work, due to which, even within very short span of marriage life of six months, she was harassed in such a manner that she committed suicide by falling herself from Firozpur Janta Express Train near village Bagwada. 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 respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. C.P. Champaneri, 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. Champaneri further submitted that there is no iota of evidence available against the present accused. He submitted that the complaint is lodged after 13 days from the date of the incident after consulting relatives and advocate and the said complaint is very lengthy and typed one. He submitted that facts of the complaint itself suggestive of the fact that the deceased died due to accident and no evidence is available on record that the present respondents have either taunted or harassed in such manner due to which the deceased committed suicide. He submitted that accidental death entry was also recorded in the police station. He submitted that facts of the complaint itself suggestive of the fact that the deceased died due to accident and no evidence is available on record that the present respondents have either taunted or harassed in such manner due to which the deceased committed suicide. He submitted that accidental death entry was also recorded in the police station. 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. C.P. Champaneri, 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 case, as the present respondents were harassing and taunting the deceased continuously for trivial issues as regards to household work, due to which, while she was proceeding to her parental home in Firozpur Janta Express Train from Bombay to Valsad, she fallen down near Bagwada and died and ultimately, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 8.1. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined six witnesses and also produced several documentary evidences. PW 1-Naresh Maganbhai Parmar has deposed that Jigna was his daughter and she got married with respondent No. 1 on 28.2.2002. The witness stated that after the marriage, deceased Jigna visited her parental home for 2-3 times. The witness stated that deceased Jigna was residing with her husband and other relatives where she was subjected to cruelty and being harassed for household work. It is stated by the witness that her daughter was treated for witchcraft before sorcerer (Bhuva). The witness stated that he received information 10.9.2002 that her daughter left Bombay for Valsad and she will be arrived at Valsad, but she was not found and on the next day, he got information that she died at Bagwada due to fall. It is stated by the witness that her daughter was treated for witchcraft before sorcerer (Bhuva). The witness stated that he received information 10.9.2002 that her daughter left Bombay for Valsad and she will be arrived at Valsad, but she was not found and on the next day, he got information that she died at Bagwada due to fall. The witness stated that thereafter the Railway Police inquired him, but he refused to lodge any complaint and he appraised the police official that after consulting lawyer and his family members, he may file the complaint if so desires and thereafter after 13 days, he lodged the complaint. In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that he is not able to say whether his daughter fallen accidentally or she committed suicide. The witness also admitted that the deceased has never informed his wife as regards to any harassment or ill-treatment from her in-laws. The witness also admitted that the deceased was under the spell of witchcraft and when she was travelling upon the train, she fallen down. 8.2. PW 2-Hetaliben Nareshbhai Patel who is sister of the deceased has also deposed in the parallel line to that of PW 1. However, in the cross examination, she has admitted that the deceased used to commute between Bombay and Valsad after the marriage. The witness also admitted that the deceased never complained regarding ill-treatment to her. The witness also admitted that she has never informed to the police as regards to any ill-treatment or cruelty meted out to deceased Jigna. 8.3. On overall evaluation of the evidence on record, it appears that except the aforesaid two witnesses, none of other witnesses have implicated the present respondents with the crime in question. However, on going through the other material available on record, indisputably, lodging the complaint in typed form after 13 days before the police after consulting lawyer and relatives, no concrete allegations are levelled against the respondents and general and vague allegations as regards to trivial issues like household work are made. It is also not coming on record that which sort of harassment or cruelty was meted out to the deceased by the respondents even though the complaint has been lodged after 13 days from the date of incident. 8.4. Admittedly, on the day of incident i.e. 10.9.2002, the police recorded accidental death case whereupon the investigation was also carried out. It is also not coming on record that which sort of harassment or cruelty was meted out to the deceased by the respondents even though the complaint has been lodged after 13 days from the date of incident. 8.4. Admittedly, on the day of incident i.e. 10.9.2002, the police recorded accidental death case whereupon the investigation was also carried out. In the said investigation, the sister, complainant and other relatives gave statements wherein they have not made any allegation as regards to cruelty or harassment by the respondents. 8.5. Even on going through the depositions of two police officials, it appears that even they are also not able to say whether the death was suicidal or accidental. Hence, the death of the deceased is not proved to be suicidal. On the contrary, scenario emerging out from the material on record is indicative of the accidental death. In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. There is no iota of evidence to link the accused with the crime in question. 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 respondents 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.