Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Sureshbhai Raijibhai ... on 2 July, 2015
Author: K.J.Thaker
Bench: K.J.Thaker
R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1094 of 2004
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
SURESHBHAI RAIJIBHAI BHIL....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JK SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR Y J PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 02/07/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1)(3) of Page 1 of 9 R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 12.2.2004 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 224 of 2002. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Shri Jayantibhai lodged FIR on 17.2.2002 at Naswadi Police Station alleging, inter alia that the deceased Sarlaben was pursuing her studies by staying at the house of her elder sister Gitaben, who was married to Kashiram Govindbhai at Rajpipla and the deceased was staying there since last 4-5 years. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused person who was studying in the physical training institution at Rajpipla came into contact with the deceased Sarlaben in the year 1999 and developed love relationship. It is the case of the prosecution that both decided to marry and for that purpose, they have also filed up the memorandum of marriage form. The accused person joined as P.T. Teacher in Kumar Primary School at Naswadi and during that period, both have exchanged the love letters. However, Sarlaben came to know on 20.1.2002 that though the accused person promised her to marry out of love relationship, the accused person decided to marry with other girl and hence the deceased Sarlaben met accused person on 22.1.2002 at Nasvadi Primary School. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused person declined to marry the deceased Sarlaben and as a result of Page 2 of 9 R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT which, the deceased Sarlaben suffered a great shock and consumed the poisonous drug. Hence the accused person accompanied Sarlaben on motorcycle and dropped her at his residence at Khodiya Village. It is however the mother of the accused person with the help of other witnesses sent Savitriben to her house and from there she was sent to Amreli Primary Health Centre for treatment. It is further case of the prosecution that looking to the serious condition of the deceased, she was sent to Vadodara Government Hospital, but, on the way proceeding towards Vadodara on 23.1.2002, at about 4.30, Sarlaben died and accordingly, the postmortem was conducted at Amreli Primary Health Centre, wherein Accident Death No. 5/2002 came to be registered, but, thereafter, the father of the deceased lodged complaint before the Nasvadi police station making allegation against accused persons and accordingly the investigation was initiated and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
2.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused about 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has also led documentary evidence in support of its case. 2.2 After filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. Page 3 of 9
R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT 2.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned
Judgment, acquitted the respondent accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.2.2004 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.224 of 2002, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
3. Shri J.K.Shah, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of acquittal is against law and evidence on record. He submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not appreciating the deposition of the witnesses. He also submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the witnesses in its true perspective and therefore the impugned judgment is bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. He also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the important circumstances about the love relationship between the accused and the deceased person and the promise made out to the deceased Sarlaben to marry her. He also submitted that when the accused person declined to marry her, the deceased consumed poisonous drug and ended her life. He also submitted that learned Sessions Judge without appreciating the circumstances proved beyond any reasonable doubt acquitted the accused person Page 4 of 9 R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT erroneously. Mr. Shah also submitted that learned Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated the important fact that the accused had promised the deceased Sarlaben to marry her and when he declined to marry her, the deceased decided to end her life. He further submitted that this circumstance itself is an abatement, so much as the accused person instigated the deceased to commit suicide and therefore the accused person would have been convicted for offence under Section 306 of IPC.
4. Mr. Shah, learned APP also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated the deposition of the medical officer Dr. Jayantibhai Joitaram, who was examined at Exh.20, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and opined that Sarlaben died due to the consumption of poisonous drug. He also submitted that the Forensic Science Laboratory report produced at Exh. 39 also stated the fact in its analysis report that the cause of death of Sarlaben is due to chemical poison, i.e. monoprophyrus. He lastly submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not properly construing and interpreting the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has erred in acquitting the accused. He, therefore, submitted that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be reversed.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Y.J.Patel submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He submitted that the lower court Page 5 of 9 R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against him. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that offence under Section 306 of IPC could be established and, therefore, the accused person is rightly acquitted by the Sessions Court. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment may not be interfered with and it may be confirmed.
6. I have heard learned APP for the appellant-State and perused the record. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. Looking to the charge framed against the respondent accused for the offence under Sections 306 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While passing the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge has given categorical finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the ingredients of section 306 are attracted in the present case against accused. There is no evidence on record to reflect that the accused has given threat to the deceased or pressurized the deceased to commit suicide. Many of the prosecution witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. The only allegation against the accused was that he wanted to marry somewhere else and he did not want to marry the deceased. It is an admitted fact that the accused used to go to meet the deceased, however, the finding of fact recorded in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment goes to show that he was not instrumental in the death of the deceased. Therefore, this appeals sans merit and Page 6 of 9 R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT is required to be dismissed.
7. 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 a recent decision in the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi thru. CBI reported in AIR 2014 SC 3798, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as under:
"19. An early but exhaustive consideration of the law in this regard is to be found in the decision of Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor wherein it was held that the power of the High Court extends to a review of the entire evidence on the basis of which the order of acquittal had been passed by the trial court and thereafter to reach the necessary conclusion as to whether order of acquittal is required to be maintained or not. In the opinion of the Privy Council no limitation on the exercise of power of the High Court in this regard has been imposed by the Code though certain principles are required to be kept in mind by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction in an appeal against an order of acquittal. The following two passages from the report in Sheo Swarup adequately sum up the situation:
"There is, in their opinion, no foundation for the view, apparently supported by the judgments of some courts in India, that the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to reverse an order of acquittal on a matter of fact, except in cases in which the lower court has 'obstinately blundered', or has 'through incompetence, stupidity or perversity' reached such 'distorted conclusions as to produce a positive miscarriage of justice,' or has in some other way so conducted itself as to produce a Page 7 of 9 R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT glaring miscarriage of justice, or has been tricked by the defence so as to produce a similar result.
(emphasis supplied) Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice."
20. The principles of law laid down by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup have been consistently followed by this Court in a series of subsequent pronouncements of which reference may be illustratively made to the following: Tulsiram Kanu v. State, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar, Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P. and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran."
Page 8 of 9
R/CR.A/1094/2004 JUDGMENT
8. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondent 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. Hence, this appeal sans merit and is required to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 12.2.2004 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 224 of 2002 acquitting the respondent accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(K.J.THAKER, J) *malek Page 9 of 9