Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 483 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Dharmendrasinh Ghoghubha Zala

2019-04-29

R.P.DHOLARIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2006 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.05 of 2005, whereby the present respondents-original accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) as well as offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Sahdevsinh Mahendrasinh Jadeja resides at Village:Saka-Chanala and is having one son and five daughters, out of which, the third daughter namely Bhartiba was married to respondent no.1-accused no.1. Since the complainant was very poor, he could not give any dowry to the respondent in the marriage. Since his daughter did not bring any dowry, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were taunting her and used to demand T.V., V.C.R., D.V.D, Tape Recorder, Fridge etc. from her. They also used to give her mental and physical torture. When the deceased came to live with complainant at his home, she told about the incident of physical and mental torture as well as taunting. Thereafter, community people intervened and in-laws of deceased-Bhartiba assured about not giving her physical and mental torture. Thereafter, on 29.10.2004, in-laws of second daughter of the complainant informed him that Bhartiba died because of burn injuries. Upon receiving such news, complainant went to Dhrangadhra and saw that his daughter was fully burnt and was dead and because of persisting dowry demand, respondents were giving her mental and physical torture. They also used to beat her and ultimately, she got fed up of such torture and poured kerosene over her person and succumbed to death. On these facts, a complaint was filed by the complainant with Dhrangadhra City Police Station. The police after investigation charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 4. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents-accused. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.12.2006 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.05 of 2005, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 6. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani has taken this Court through the entire records and proceedings and argued that though the parents, grandfather and other near relatives fully supported the case of prosecution, learned trial court recording minor contradictions and improvements therein has wrongfully discarded their entire evidence and has wrongfully given the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused and therefore, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be converted into conviction. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Viral Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the respondents-accused pointed out that a short span of marriage of only ten months was there and as admitted by the parents and near relatives of the deceased, she was almost everyday visiting her parental home and she had never complained about ill-treatment and as regards demand of dowry in form of T.V., V.C.R., D.V.D., Tape Recorder etc. He submits that the complainant-father of the deceased himself admitted that such things were not mentioned in his complaint. He further submits that in view of aforesaid nature of evidence, learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused. He further submits that respondent no.1-accused no.1 has already remained in jail in all for about two years and he has been sufficiently punished. 8. As per the prosecution version, the deceased-Bhartiba got married with respondent no.1-accused no.1-Dharmendrasinh Zala for about ten months prior to the date of incident and during the period of their short marriage span, the respondents-accused were demanding dowry in form of T.V., V.C.R., D.V.D., Tape Recorder etc. 8. As per the prosecution version, the deceased-Bhartiba got married with respondent no.1-accused no.1-Dharmendrasinh Zala for about ten months prior to the date of incident and during the period of their short marriage span, the respondents-accused were demanding dowry in form of T.V., V.C.R., D.V.D., Tape Recorder etc. as well as also used to harass her and treat her with cruelty due to which on 29.10.2004, the deceased poured kerosene over her person and set on fire and committed suicide thereon and thereby the respondents-accused committed offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC as well as offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. PW.3-Sahdevsinh Mahendrasinh Jadeja-complainantfather of the deceased deposed that the respondents-accused were demanding dowry and taunting her for not bringing sufficient dowry and were treating her with cruelty and also harassing her and such things was apprised to him by the deceased when she visited her maternal home during the festival of Janmastmi. In the cross-examination, he admitted in paragraph-4 that he had not stated before the police that while the deceased-Bhartiba visited his house during the festival of Janmastmi she told him about demand of dowry like T.V., V.C.R., D.V.D., Tape Recorder etc. from her in-laws and they were treating her with cruelty and were harassing her. 10. PW.4-Rasikba Sahdevsinh-mother of the deceased has almost given the same evidence as given by her husband-complainant. 11. PW.5-Ajaysinh Mahipatsinh Zala-brother-in-law of the deceased-Bhartiba deposed that while he visited the house of the deceased for inviting her for hymns, at that time, she complained that the respondents-accused were demanding dowry in form of T.V., V.C.R., D.V.D., Tape Recorder etc. and were harassing her. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not inform the parents of the deceased regarding such things stated by the deceased-Bhartiba and he had not even stated so before the police. 12. PW.6-Rekhaba Ajaysinh Zala-sister of the deceased-Bhartiba also deposed on parallel line as her parents have deposed. 13. PW.9-Dr. Pravinbhai Jamandas Sheth-Medical Officer, who was serving with Government Hospital, Dhrangadhra, and who carried out autopsy over the dead body of the deceased-Bhartiba with Panel Doctor - Ahar A. Patel opined that the cause of death is due to 100% burns over her body. 14. 13. PW.9-Dr. Pravinbhai Jamandas Sheth-Medical Officer, who was serving with Government Hospital, Dhrangadhra, and who carried out autopsy over the dead body of the deceased-Bhartiba with Panel Doctor - Ahar A. Patel opined that the cause of death is due to 100% burns over her body. 14. On the overall evaluation of aforesaid evidence on record, though prosecution has put up the case that after treating the deceased-Bhartiba happily initially for about two-three months of the marriage, the respondents-accused started demanding T.V., V.C.R., D.V.D., Tape Recorder etc. and for not bringing such things, they were ill-treating her and also harassing her. The evidence as regards to the aforesaid aspect is not uniform in nature from the mouth of the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution. The complainant-father of the deceased himself stated that the deceased had not informed as regards to demand of aforesaid articles from her parental home while she lastly visited him during the festival of Janmastmi. 15. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, no direct evidence is available on record in the nature of dying declaration or statement of the deceased. The entire case of prosecution is based upon the hearsay evidence which is also not clearly linking the respondents-accused with the crime in question. In that view of the matter, learned trial court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused which calls for no interference. Therefore, present appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be rejected. 16. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned decision as it cannot be said to be either perverse or not borne out from the facts of the case. The State has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view in this matter. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned decision as it cannot be said to be either perverse or not borne out from the facts of the case. The State has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view in this matter. Hence, this appeal sans merit is required to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 02.12.2006 rendered by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.05 of 2005, acquitting the respondents-accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.