Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2069 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Sanjaybhai Mohanlal Shah

2016-09-27

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 17.3.2007 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.125 of 2001. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that elder daughter of the complainant was married with respondent No.1 prior to seven months from the date of incident. It is alleged that after a period of two and half months from her marriage, while daughter Rina was brought to her parental house, she was complaining regarding ill-treatment and harassment caused by the respondents. It is alleged that the deceased has stated that respondent No.1 was habitual drunkard and was insisting her to bring money from her parental home. It is also alleged that the respondents were also harassing and taunting her regarding insufficient dowry. It is alleged that therefore the deceased has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person. 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 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 several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 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. 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 has not believed the evidence on record and wrongfully acquitted the accused. In his submission, 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. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State. Though served, none appears for the respondents accused. 7. 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. 7.1 PW 1 – Dilipbhai Suryaprakash Shah who was panch of inquest panchnama carried over the dead body of deceased Rina has proved the panchnama in his deposition. However, in the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he is hailing from Kaskganj, Uttar Pradesh and he is acquainted with the complainant as well as respondents as they are belonging to his own community and the complainant is near relative. The witness has deposed that the deceased was residing near his house at Naswadi and after the marriage, the deceased and her husband were residing happily and there was no harassment to the deceased. The witness has admitted that on the day of incident, while the deceased was preparing khichdi over the stove, at that time, due to shouting, he went to the place of incident and she was doused by pouring water over her person and she was taken to the hospital thereafter. 7.2 PW 2 – Dr. Kishor P. Desai who carried out the postmortem over the dead body of deceased Rina has deposed that the deceased died due to extensive burn injuries. 7.2 PW 2 – Dr. Kishor P. Desai who carried out the postmortem over the dead body of deceased Rina has deposed that the deceased died due to extensive burn injuries. 7.3 PW 3 – Dayaram Kishanbhai Sidhi who is panch of the panchnama of scene of offence which was carried out soon after the incident has proved the panchnama in his deposition. The witness has deposed that the incident has occurred on 15.1.2001, at that time, he was at his house and he came to know about shouting for help when Rina got burnt and he went to the place of incident where he noticed that the deceased caught fire while preparing khichdi over the stove in her house. The witness has stated that he and others have tried to douse the deceased and thereafter she was taken to the hospital. The witness has deposed that when she was conscious, the police as well as the Executive Magistrate have recorded dying declaration and thereafter, she was shifted to the hospital at Vadodara. 7.4 PW 4 – Ramprakash Ramcharan Paltani who is the father of the deceased has deposed that on 10.7.2000 deceased Rina got married with respondent Sanjay. The witness has deposed that thereafter, she was residing along with her husband and in-laws for about four months. The witness has deposed that thereafter, when he visited the place of the deceased, at that time, she complained as to how she has been harassed by the respondents and the respondents used to subject her cruelty by demanding money for purchasing liquor as well as for insufficient dowry. 7.5 PW 5 – Sanjaybhai Ramprakash Paltani and PW 6 – Jagdishprasad Udayprakash Paltani almost gave similar depositions in the manner in which the father of the deceased has deposed. 7.6 PW 7 – Lalaram Laxmichand Maheshwar who was middle man for arranging the marriage of the deceased as well as respondent Sanjay has deposed that the incident occurred on 15.1.2001. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he is family friend of the respondents as well as complainant and hailing from Kaskganj, Uttar Pradesh. The witness has admitted that deceased Rina used to meet him and she was very happy at his matrimonial home and she has never complained against the respondents. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he is family friend of the respondents as well as complainant and hailing from Kaskganj, Uttar Pradesh. The witness has admitted that deceased Rina used to meet him and she was very happy at his matrimonial home and she has never complained against the respondents. The witness has admitted that when he visited Naswadi after the death of the deceased, the neighbour has told him that the deceased caught fire while preparing khichdi and there was no harassment from any of the respondents. 7.7 Over and above the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution has also produced dying declarations at Exhs.21 and 40. The dying declaration at Exh.21 was recorded on the day of incident i.e. 15.1.2001 by the Police Sub-Inspector, Naswadi wherein deceased Rina stated that she was residing along with her husband and in-laws for about last six months and she is hailing from Kaskganj, District Eta, Uttar Pradesh. She further stated that at about 8.15 hours in the evening while she was preparing khichdi on the day of incident, at that time, her sari caught fire from flame of gas, due to which, she received burn injuries, at that time, her husband has gone for answering the nature’s call and her in-laws were at Jodhpur. She stated that after catching fire, she shouted for help, due to which, her husband as well as other persons came to rescue her and they brought her to the hospital and there was no harassment or ill-treatment from the husband and in-laws and the incident occurred because of the accident. 7.8 Another dying declaration at Exh.40 was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 15.1.2001 in between 21.30 hours and 21.40 hours wherein she narrated that at 8.15 hours on the day of incident, after igniting gas stove, when she was preparing khichdi, at that time, her sari caught fire and she got burnt and nobody has burnt her. 8. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, parents and brother of the deceased had involved the respondent-husband and in-laws in the crime in question as it is the case of the prosecution that due to their harassment, the deceased has committed suicide. 8. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, parents and brother of the deceased had involved the respondent-husband and in-laws in the crime in question as it is the case of the prosecution that due to their harassment, the deceased has committed suicide. However, two dying declarations at Exhs.21 and 40 are clearly indicative of the fact that while she was preparing khichdi over the gas stove, she caught fire, due to which, she got burnt accidentally. The said fact is also getting corroboration from the panchnama of scene of offence which came to be drawn on the same day at Exh.25 wherein in the middle of the panchnama, description of kitchen is given i.e. standing kitchen, gas stove and cooker amongst other things were found for preparation of khichdi; marks of burning over the kitchen were also found; burnt pieces of sari, chania etc. were also found from the place of incident. 8.1 Over and above the aforesaid evidence, neighbours who are near relatives of the complainant have also deposed that the deceased died accidentally while preparing food over the gas stove in the kitchen. 8.2 In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, learned trial Court has rightly not believed the evidence of the parents. Even otherwise also, the evidence of the parents is in the nature of hearsay evidence as the neither the complainant nor other relatives have witnessed the incident. In view of the aforesaid two dying declarations which are materially corroborated from the panchnama of scene of offence as well as from the evidence of neighbours, learned trial Court has rightly recorded the findings of acquittal which calls for no interference. 8.3 So far as linking the present respondents with the crime in question is concerned, it is very difficult to link the present respondents with the crime in question keeping in mind the provisions of section 306 read with section 107 of IPC. The evidence on record clearly suggests that there was no personal meeting, quarrel or any sort of exchange of words between the respondents and the deceased. In this view of the matter, there appears no proximate cause of giving any sort of incitement and abetment to commit suicide and, therefore, the respondents cannot be linked with the crime in question. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. In this view of the matter, there appears no proximate cause of giving any sort of incitement and abetment to commit suicide and, therefore, the respondents cannot be linked with the crime in question. 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 respondents 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. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Appeal dismissed.