Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Lalbhai Ramanlal Shah & ... on 13 August, 2014
Author: G.B.Shah
Bench: G.B.Shah
R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1260 of 1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ? No
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ? No
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
LALBHAI RAMANLAL SHAH & 3....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.K.L.PANDYA, APP, for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 , 4
MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No.
2
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 13/08/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellantState under section Page 1 of 8 R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 31.08.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.05 of 1998, whereby the respondentsoriginal accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No.2original accused No.2 is the husband of deceasedTaraben, respondent No.1original accused No.1 is the fatherinlaw of the deceased, respondent No.3 original accused No.3 is the brotherinlaw (Diyar) of the deceased and respondent No.4original accused No.4 is the motherinlaw of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of the sister of the complainantAnopkumar Gupta was solemnized with respondent No.2original accused No.2 before three years of the alleged incident and after the marriage they were residing together in a joint family and the deceased often used to visit her brotherinlaw's house. After six months of their marriage, there was a complaint from the parental house of the deceased that the respondentsaccused were demanding dowry of Rs.25,000/from the deceased and as the brotherinlaw of the deceased did not have money to give Rs.25,000/ as a dowry, he sent back the deceased to her matrimonial home. Sister of the deceasedJayshreeben also tried to persuade the respondentsaccused not to demand dowry, but respondentsaccused continued to demand dowry and thereby they have beaten and taunted the deceased. About two months prior to the alleged incident, on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, the complainant went to her elder sister's house and the complainant gave Tap Recorder to deceased and his elder sister. Respondent No.2accused No.2 also went to complainant's house and demanded dowry of Rs.25000/, but Page 2 of 8 R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT the complainant told him that he did not have the money and he would give the money as and when arranged. Thereafter, on 14.10.1997 at about 18:30 p.m., the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and set ablaze. When respondent No.1accused informed this to Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad, Accidental Death Entry No.22 of 1997 was registered. Thereafter, Punjaji, PSI went the place of incident and recorded statements of the respondentsaccused. On 15.10.1997, Ravjibhai Balat, Dy.S.P. carried out the panchnama of place of incident and recovered some Muddamal. The complainant made a complaint against the respondentsoriginal accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act before Shri Ravjibhai Balat. Thereafter, Muddmal were sent to FSL, inquest Panchama of the deceased were carried out and Postmortem of the deceased was done.
2.1. At the end of investigation and on the basis of material collected against the accused, since a prima facie case was made out against the accused, a chargesheet was filed against them. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the accused, which was read over to them. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.
2.2. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 10 witnesses and also produced certain documentary evidence.
2.3 Upon filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, 1973 were recorded. The accused denied involvement in the crime. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the prosecution and the defence, the learned Page 3 of 8 R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT trial Judge, acquitted the respondentsaccused of the charges levelled against them, which is giving rise to the present appeal. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 4original accused Nos.1 and 4 died during the pendency of the appeal, vide order dated 04.08.2014 the appeal qua respondent Nos.1 and 4 has been ordered to be abated.
3. Heard Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellantState and Mr.Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No.2original accused No.2. It appears that though notice of admission issued by this Court was duly served to respondent No.3 original accused No.3, he did not remain present either personally or through any advocate.
4. Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record in its true and proper perspective. He then submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that in the complaint, the complainant had stated that the deceased married with respondent No.2accused before three years ago and after their marriage, whenever the deceased went to her paternal house, she always complained about demand of dowry by the respondentaccused and thereby respondentsaccused used to beat the deceased and also gave mental and physical torture. He submitted that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated the depositions of complainantAnopbhai Exh.11, Rameshchandra Avasthi at Exh.17 and Jayshreeben at Exh.23, who have fully supported the case of the prosecution with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondentsaccused beyond reasonable doubt and thereby, the learned trial Judge has committed error in acquitting the respondents-accused. It is therefore, urged that the present appeal requires to be allowed.
Page 4 of 8R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT
5. On the other hand, Mr. Dhirendra Mehta, learned advocate for respondent No.4original accused No.4 submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence forthcoming on the record and the reasons recorded by it for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. He has further submitted that there are glaring and major contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses, seriously affecting the root of the matter. Therefore, the respondents were rightly acquitted by the trial court. The learned advocate for the respondent No.4original accused No.4 further submitted that this being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial court deserves to be upheld as proper, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. Eventually, he submitted that the present appeal may be dismissed.
6. It is required to be noted that the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court have been very clearly explained by the Honble Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, it has been held by the Honble Apex Court In para 16 as under:
16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the Page 5 of 8 R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT commission of the crime he is charged with.
7. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589.
8. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court together with oral as well as documentary evidence and also considered submissions made by learned advocates for the parties, in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions.
9.It is not under dispute that the complainantAnopkumar Gupta brother of the deceased had settled himself at Khandva, Madhaya Pradesh. It is also not under dispute that the marriage span of the deceased with respondent No.2 was approximately of 3 years and on 14.10.1997, the deceased had herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on her and committed suicide. Nothing has come on the record that deceased had written any chit or letter prior to committing suicide because after the alleged incident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries within a short time and hence, the dying declaration could not be recorded. The depositions of complainantAnopkumar Gupta, brother of the deceased, Jayshreeben, sister of deceased and Rameshchandra Awashtibrotherinlaw of the deceased were recorded vide Exh.11, 23 and 17 respectively. Referring to the deposition of the complainant in light of the complaint lodged by him at Exh.12, there appears vital contradictions regarding the important version related to allegation of dowry put forth by the complainant. In the complaint, it is mentioned by the complainant that after the marriage, the decease used to visit her parental house Page 6 of 8 R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT frequently and after six months of their marriage life, the deceased was complaining regarding the cruelty being given by the respondents for dowry. In the crossexamination of the complainant, he had deposed that after the marriage, the deceased alongwith her husband had visited the parental house at Khandva. He had further deposed that the deceased did not tell anything regarding cruelty having meted out to her or any demand of dowry made by the accused to him, but she told the same to her mother. Thus, averments made in the complaint create doubt about the genuineness and veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Regarding the visit of the complainant to the house of the deceased as well as his another sister Jayshreeben on the day of Rakshabandhan alongwith Tape Recorders for both of them, gets no support from the rest of the witnesses i.e. Jayshreeben and her husband Rameshchandra, who have been examined by the prosecution. During the course of investigation, the statements of neibhourers were also recorded, but they had not given any support to the say of the complainant. The panch witness i.e. Ashokbhai Shah of the inquest panchnama had admitted in the crossexamination that he was the neibhour of the deceased and according to him, the deceased and respondents were residing happily. If the evidence which is forthcoming on the record is perused, it appears that the same is not trustworthy and inspires no confidence on the allegations of cruelty levelled by the respondents and the said points have been discussed at length by the learned trial Judge. Under the circumstances, on giving thoughtful consideration to the impugned judgment and order, there appears no illegality or perversity or arbitrariness in the conclusions arrived at and findings recorded by the learned trial Judge.
10. It appears that the learned trial Court, on an elaborate discussion of the entire oral and documentary evidence in true perspective, has Page 7 of 8 R/CR.A/1260/1999 JUDGMENT acquitted the accused, as aforesaid. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. Under the circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it in the said findings and therefore, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the same.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence to take a view contrary to the view taken by the learned trial Court or that the approach of the learned trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the learned trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal having found without any substance, fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), at Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.05 of 1998. Bail bonds shall stand cacelled. Registry to sent back the record and proceedings, if called for, to the trial Court forthwith after following due procedure for the same.
(G.B.SHAH, J.) siddharth// Page 8 of 8