Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 928 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Harishbhai Mansukhlal Jadia

2016-04-29

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.4.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 64/2003, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondents herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with section 114 of IPC. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the complainant Mahendabhai Mavjibhai Ghedia, has filed a complaint on 7.10.2002 before City A Division Police Station for the alleged offence under sec. 306 and 114 of IPC vide CR No. I-401/2002 stating the fact that on 6.10.2002 at about 5.00 hours, in the evening when both the sons of complainant were present in his shop, dispute has taken place with Soni Mansukhlal Jadia regarding transaction of gold and money. It is further the case of the prosecution that at about 9.30 hours, respondents accused Harish Mansukhlal Jadia and Mahesh Mansukhlal Jadia along with relatives came to the house of complainant and threatened Hitesh to return money, and therefore, Hitesh has replied that I have not made any transaction of money or gold with you inspite of the fact you are harassing me falsely. It is further the case of the prosecution that at that time accused Harish Mansukhlal and Mahesh Mansukhlal have informed that you have to give me Rs. 10 lacs and 3 kgs. Gold, otherwise, your life will be in danger and thereby threatened the complainant and his family members. Therefore, due to such type of harassment and ill treatment as well as threats given by accused, Hitesh who is son of the complainant and Rakshaben wife of Hitesh have committed suicide by consuming poisonous drugs as they have not made any transaction. Therefore, the complaint was lodged. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondents were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against them in the Court of learned Magistrate, Jamnagar. As the case the exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 64/2003. The trial was initiated against the respondents. 3. During the course of investigation, respondents were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against them in the Court of learned Magistrate, Jamnagar. As the case the exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 64/2003. The trial was initiated against the respondents. 3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses and also produced thirty five documentary evidences. 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 respondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgment and order dated 15.4.2005. 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. It was contended by learned APP Mr. Rutvij Oza that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; 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 and submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Mr. Oza learned APP has argued that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record though there was sufficient material and evidence were available against the accused. While appreciating the same, the learned trial Judge has recorded the finding upon his own presumption which is contrary to the provisions of law. The finding recorded by the learned trial Judge is not in accordance with the settled provisions of law, which requires to be reversed. 7. Whereas, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondents, has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. 7. Whereas, learned advocate Mr. Patel for the respondents, has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Patel learned advocate for the respondent has argued that as there was long standing dispute as regards to the settlement of their accounts and regarding transaction due to which on the day of the incident also, there was an altercation in between accused No. 1 and deceased Hitesh, due to which, the accused as well as the deceased were arrested, and thereafter, they were released on bail on the same day, and the deceased was taken to his house, and thereafter, for about 15 persons were gathered during the nocturnal hour to settle the issue between the respondent and deceased regarding the transaction, and during that meeting, there was hited exchange of words and due to which, after the conclusion of the meeting, when the deceased Hitesh and his wife Rakshaben remained alone, they went out of their house and consumed poison and committed suicide, for which, there appears no evidence on record that the accused have ever aided or abated or enticed in such a manner to drive them to commit suicide. He has further argued that the learned trail Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence available on record and has rightly acquitted them which calls for no interference and he supported the judgment. He has further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in acquitting the respondents, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the record and proceedings, the precise charge against the present respondents is such that on the date of the incident, as the respondents demanded unlawfully Rs. 10 lakhs cash cash well as 3 kgs. gold from the deceased and threatened them to finish, and due to which, they committed suicide. 9. It is to be noted that there is no dispute that Hitesh and Rakshaben had consumed poison and due to which, they died and the death of them is an act of commission of suicide. 10 lakhs cash cash well as 3 kgs. gold from the deceased and threatened them to finish, and due to which, they committed suicide. 9. It is to be noted that there is no dispute that Hitesh and Rakshaben had consumed poison and due to which, they died and the death of them is an act of commission of suicide. The prosecution, in order to prove that the present respondents have aided, enticed and driven them out to commit suicide, examined PW-2 - Mahendrabhai Mavjibhai Ex. 19, who is the father of deceased Hitesh. In his deposition, he has deposed that on the date of incident, he got his son Hitesh released on bail and he received information that the dispute is subsisting in between Hitesh and respondent No. 1 regarding some monetary transaction, but he has admitted in his cross-examination that he has no personal information as regards the transaction took place between deceased Hitesh and respondent No. 1. He has also admitted that on the day of incident, at about 9.30 p.m. during the nocturnal hours, his family members, father of his daughter-in-law i.e. deceased Rakshaben, his nephew and other persons were at his house, and at that time, for about 12 persons came along with the respondents. In the cross-examination, he has also admitted that he had never complained that as respondents were unlawfully demanding Rs. 10 lakhs and 3 kgs. Gold, due to which, his son and daughter-in-law committed suicide. 10. PW-4 Jignesh Mahendrabhai Ex. 21, who is the brother of deceased Hitesh, has deposed that on the day of the incident, when he was accompanying his brother Hitesh, at that time, respondent No. 1 intercepted him and demanded money and due to which, a quarrel took place. At that time, police arrived there and they both were taken to the police station and his brother was released on bail. On the same night, respondent No. 1 came along with 10 to 12 persons at his house and his brother was threatened to return Rs. 10 lakhs and 3 kgs. gold, otherwise, they would finish his brother. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on the day of the incident, after getting bail out his brother, the leading persons of his family and community were called for settling the issue between his brother and respondents. 11. PW-5 Jaysukhlal Manilal Ex. 10 lakhs and 3 kgs. gold, otherwise, they would finish his brother. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on the day of the incident, after getting bail out his brother, the leading persons of his family and community were called for settling the issue between his brother and respondents. 11. PW-5 Jaysukhlal Manilal Ex. 22, who is the father-in-law of deceased Hitesh and father of deceased Rakshaben. On going through his entire oral evidence, there appears no uniformity in his deposition. He has kept on changing his testimony, and even there are several contradictions, improvement and exaggeration in his deposition. The only thing comes out from his evidence is that he had no personal information regarding the transaction in between his deceased son-in-law and the present respondents but the things got established that there was a dispute as regards to the settlement of transaction. 12. On overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, undisputedly, the fact clearly establishes that the deceased Hitesh and the respondent No. 1 as well as brother of deceased PW-4 Jignesh, are engaged in the some monetary transaction as well in dealing with the gold and the dispute appears to have been occurred prior to one month of the incident, and hence, talks regarding the settlement was going but on the said fateful day, i.e. on 6.10.2002, two incidents took place. On the first incident, deceased Hitesh and respondent No. 1 and PW-4 Jignesh met together at Chandibazar, near Temple of Shitlamata, on the way and while they were started some talk regarding settlement of transaction, some altercation took place, which resulted into the quarrel and they were taken to the police station and they enlarged on bail on the same evening, and thereafter, again deceased as well as respondents in presence of other about 20 persons gathered for settling the dispute in presence of leaders of community and family members, at that time, there was hited exchange of words and even, it is alleged that the deceased was threatened by the present respondents and after the meeting was over, when the deceased was alone, he accompanied his wife and went out of the house and consumed poison. From the evidence on record, nowhere it is found that during the course of settlement meeting any one of the accused has specifically aided or enticed in such a manner to drive them out to commit suicide. On the contrary, the evidence on record clearly suggest that there was a quarrel as regards to the settlement of their transaction. No specific evidence or specific utterance from the accused is brought on record so that the accused can be attributed with the utterance of words in such a manner which lead them to commit suicide. The learned trial Judge has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and elaborately discussed and analysed the evidence on record, which is in accordance with the settled provisions of law and while reading the same, this Court is also concur with the same and the appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 13. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. I 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. I am, 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. 14. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.