Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 859 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Nanjibhai Bijalbhai Chauhan

2016-04-21

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 28.11.2005 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 11, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2004. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Taraben who is daughter of the complainant has been married with respondent No. 3 before seven years from the date of the incident and after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty by respondents accused on petty matters. It is alleged that deceased Taraben was subjected to cruelty by her husband as well as father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law on the ground of household work. It is also alleged that the deceased was also subjected to cruelty by respondents on the ground of not bringing sufficient dowry. It is alleged that before five years from the date of incident, deceased Taraben was driven out from the house of in-laws and thereafter, settlement has taken place. It is alleged that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured by the respondents. It is alleged that the accused persons in abetment of each other have caused physical and mental torture to the deceased and, therefore, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting her on fire. 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 10 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as PM report at Exh. 15, panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 19, inquest panchnama Exh. 20, arrest panchnama Exh. 21, original complaint of the complainant Exh. 58 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement 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. 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. Rutvij Oza, 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 near relatives, i.e. brothers and sisters have supported the case of the prosecution and soon after the incident, she was driven out from the house and on the same day, she returned to the matrimonial house. He submitted that the incident took place due to cruelty meted out to the deceased and as a result thereof, she committed suicide. He further submitted that other corroborative evidence in the nature of panchnama also supporting the case of prosecution and it does not indicate that the incident in question occurred because of an accident. He, therefore, submitted that learned trial Court could have taken the view that incident occurred due to abetment made and as a result thereof, the deceased committed suicide. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court 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. M.J. Buddhbhatti, 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. Buddhbhatti further submitted that near relatives have supported the case of the prosecution, but if we may analysis the evidence on record, the evidence suffers from the vice of lots of improvements, contradictions and variances amongst themselves. He submitted that not only that, documentary evidence in the nature of application Exh. Mr. Buddhbhatti further submitted that near relatives have supported the case of the prosecution, but if we may analysis the evidence on record, the evidence suffers from the vice of lots of improvements, contradictions and variances amongst themselves. He submitted that not only that, documentary evidence in the nature of application Exh. 58 given by the complainant and the FIR lodged thereafter also contain lots of improvements which also create doubt as regards to the prosecution version and they being relatives, the case of the prosecution was rightly not believed by learned trial Judge and rightly given the benefit of doubt. 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. Rutvij Oza, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. M.J. Buddhbhatti, 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. On over-all analysis of the evidence on record, it clearly emerges that upon getting the injury by fire, the deceased became unconscious and she never gain consciousness and, therefore, there is no dying declaration. 8.1 In view of the aforesaid factual position, only decisive evidence available on record is the evidence of PW 2, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7. PW 2 to 5 are the parents, brothers and sisters of the deceased whose evidence learned trial Judge has analysed and discussed in detail in paragraph Nos. 14 to 18 of the impugned judgment wherein learned trial Judge has recorded that there is no uniformity amongst the evidence given by the mother, father, brothers and sisters of the deceased. It can be noticed that the aforesaid witnesses have made lots of improvements while deposing before learned trial Court. 14 to 18 of the impugned judgment wherein learned trial Judge has recorded that there is no uniformity amongst the evidence given by the mother, father, brothers and sisters of the deceased. It can be noticed that the aforesaid witnesses have made lots of improvements while deposing before learned trial Court. Not only that even in scanning the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses together with other evidence, the evidence emerges in such a manner that either husband and mother-in-law or father-in-law or brother-in-law get absolved from the charges levelled against them and cruelty meted out by the respondents to the deceased is not established beyond reasonable doubt due to the aforesaid improvements, contradictions and exaggeration. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that learned trial Court has rightly not believed the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses so far as cruelty meted out to the deceased is concerned. 8.2 Now, the question arises that four days prior to the date of the alleged incident, she was sent to the parental home for bringing wheat or money as dowry, but she returned to the matrimonial home without taking anything with her on the previous day of the incident and due to which, she was treated with cruelty and as a result, the deceased committed suicide. The prosecution has also failed to establish the aforesaid fact on record as in Exh. 58 and Exh. 29 which are in the nature of complaint as well as FIR wherein also, lots of improvements had been made by the complainant as the fact regarding bringing wheat as well as money was not alleged in the typed complaint given before the police, whereas something has been improved thereafter. There appears no plausible explanation on record for not stating the said fact. In the result, the case put up by the prosecution as regards to bringing wheat and money and she returned without taking anything with her and, therefore, she was being treated with cruelty and due to which she committed suicide falls to the ground. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused by giving benefit of doubt due to the aforesaid nature of evidence on record. 9. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused by giving benefit of doubt due to the aforesaid 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.