Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pranaysinh Alias Pravinsinh ... on 9 April, 2015
Author: K.J. Thaker
Bench: K.J.Thaker
R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 599 of 2003
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see Yes
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
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 No
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
PRANAYSINH ALIAS PRAVINSINH DASHRATHSINH CHAVDA &
3....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI H BHATT, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARNISH V DARJI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
-4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 09/04/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Additional Public Page 1 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT Prosecutor for the appellant - State Ms. Monali H. Bhatt and learned Advocate for the respondents Mr. Harnish V. Darji.
2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant
- State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.11.2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.126/2001 whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961.
3. The case in brief and the incident which occurred on 02.10.2000 are as under :-
The accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased - Manharba, the accused No.2 is the father-in-law, the accused No.3 is the brother-in-law and the accused No.4 is the mother-in-law of the deceased.Page 2 of 18
R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT The deceased had married the accused No.1 on 28.04.1998 and all of them were staying in a joint family. It is the say of the prosecution that the accused used to harass the deceased mentally and physically on account of inadequate dowry. Fed up with this torture, the deceased poured kerosene on her body and set herself ablaze. Thus, it is alleged that the accused abetted the deceased in committing suicide.
It is further the case of the prosecution that the deceased used to tell her father, mother and her sister- in-law that she was being subjected to harassment on account of inadequate dowry. The elderly persons of the caste had intervened and lastly, the father of the deceased had given Rs.10000/= to his daughter, so that the accused No.1 could buy a Jeep.
On her committing suicide, the deceased was rushed to the Civil Hospital, Page 3 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT Ahmedabad. However, she succumbed to the burn injuries. On these facts, the complaint was filed and the police after due completion of the investigation, charge-sheeted the accused as stated above.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution led evidence and the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad City acquitted the accused of all the offences.
4. The prosecution relied on the evidences led by :-
Particulars Exhibit PW1 - Girvatsingh Bhagwatsingh 9 PW2 - Dr. Sumanlal Bholanath 11 PW3 - Raghunathsinh Sevaji 13 PW4 - Dipakkumar Dabhi 14 PW5 - Kiranbhai Narendrabhai 21 PW6 - Lakshmanbhai Nada 22 PW7 - Bhagvatbhai S. Vaghela 24 PW8 - Manishaben Pruthvisinh 25 Page 4 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT PW9 - Ullasben Waghela 26 PW10 - Jagdishbhai Ghelabhai 27 Katara PW11 - Gauridutt Dayanidhi Sharma 30 The prosecution also relied on eleven documentary evidences. 5. In the above background of facts,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali H. Bhatt has submitted that all the accused are accused to have tortured the deceased physically and mentally because of the non-fulfillment of the dowry demand of Rs.50,000/=. The deceased committed suicide at the house of the accused and the said suicide was within a span of 2½ years of the marriage. The learned Judge ought to have appreciated that the deceased had already told her father, mother, sister- in-law and others about the demand of dowry; and the father of the deceased had given Rs.10,000/= for purchase of the jeep. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the testimony of Manishaben, Page 5 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT who is an independent witness and the fast friend of the deceased and also the evidence of Ullasben at Exhibit 26. To both of them, the deceased had narrated the ordeal about the constant torture meted out to her by the in-laws. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires this Court to exercise its discretion and upturn the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate for the respondents Mr. Harnish V. Darji has produced before this Court, an Affidavit on behalf of the respondents, which reads as under :-
"1. I along with other respondents are the original accused of Sessions Case No.126 of 2001. I say and submit that respondent No.2 (Original Accused No.2) Dashrathsinh Pruthvisinh Chavda had expired on 17/12/2008. Copy of death certificate is annexed herewith.
2. I say and submit that respondents herein original Page 6 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT accused were arrested on 02/10/2000. Thereafter, respondent no.2, 3 and 4 were enlarged by the Honourable High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 13/11/2000. I say and submit that respondent no.1 original accused no.1 was enlarged on bail on 26/12/2000.
3. I say and submit that after the unfortunate incident dated 02/10/2000, much time has passed. I am doing driving work and thereby maintaining my family. I say and submit that I have remarried in the year 2006. Out of said wedlock I am having two children. One girl aged about 9 years and she is studying in 4th standard. I am having one son who is aged 5 years and he is studying in Balmandir. I say and submit that original accused no.3 Pareshsinh Dashrathsinh Chavda has married in the year 2006. He is having one son and one daughter. His daughter is aged about 7 years. His son is aged about 2 years. Both children are studying in school. He is residing separately from deponent. I say and submit that respondent No.4 Amarba W/O of Dashrathsinh Pruthvisinh Chavda is aged about 64 years. She is not keeping good health due to her old age. I say and submit that she has been operated for Page 7 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT cataract on 11/03/2015. I say and submit that almost 14 years have passed after the unfortunate incident and there is no untoward incident during this period.
There is no other offence registered against any of the respondents. Considering this peculiar facts and considering the subsequent events present appeal may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice."
Considering the above, it is submitted that no interference is called for in the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
7. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. Before proceeding with the matter and before this Court goes to the factual scenario, as it emerges before the Trial Court, it would be relevant to refer to the principles to hear an appeal against acquittal, which are time and again Page 8 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT reiterated by the Apex Court. More particularly, in a recent judgment in the case of S. Govindaraju v. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 15 SCC 315, wherein, the Apex Court held that it is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e. if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. The Apex Court further held that while doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal Page 9 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence.
8. Further, the Apex Court in Basappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 154, held that the reversal of a judgment of acquittal passed by a trial Court is permissible, only if the judgment of the trial Court is perverse and just because a different view is possible, as per the appellate Court, the findings of the trial Court should not be normally reversed.
9. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In paragraph 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed 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 Page 10 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT 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 re-appreciate 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 commission of the crime he is charged with."
10. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of 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.
Page 11 of 18R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
11. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. Vs. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu (AIR 2013 SC 321), the Apex Court in Para-4 has held as under :
"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the Page 12 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573]."
12. It is a 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. On the touchstone of these judgments, the principles enunciated therein go to show Page 13 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT that the finding of fact recorded in the said impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse and this view is based on facts. The prosecution have failed to prove the main ingredients for bringing home the charges namely demand for dowry and inducement.
13. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under :-
"498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.Page 14 of 18
R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT
114. Abettor present when offence is committed. - Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence."
14. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala & Anr reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In Para-54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under :-
"In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."Page 15 of 18
R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT
15. Having heard learned Advocates and perusing the record of the case and on the touchstone of the aforesaid decisions, the following facts stand proved :-
a) The prosecution has not proved that there was demand for dowry or harassment which would fall within the purview of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
b) Even on facts, this Court is of the considered view that the death did not occur due to any mental harassment by the accused.
c) The principles enunciated by the Apex Court will not permit this Court to upturn the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as the prosecution has not proved that there was abetment and that the accused were subjecting the deceased to any harassment for getting dowry.
Therefore, this Court cannot invoke Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act.
Page 16 of 18R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT
16. I am unable to accept the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali H. Bhatt that the findings of the Court are perverse. The findings of the Court on this aspect is just and germane as the totality of the evidence on record nowhere states that there was a demand of dowry by either of the respondents.
17. This takes this Court to the next aspect of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record which would go to show that the accused had abetted the death of the deceased. All this cumulatively have led to the acquittal of the accused and therefore, I do not find any justification in reversing the well reasoned judgment of the Trial Court.
18. I am supported in my view by the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2014) 10 SCC Page 17 of 18 R/CR.A/599/2003 JUDGMENT 584 and also the decision in the case of KK Sarma vs. R.V. Surya Rao reported in 2013 CRLJ 2189.
19. In the result, the judgment and order of acquittal dated dated 01.11.2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No.126/2001 is confirmed.
20. The Appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.J. THAKER, J.) CAROLINE Page 18 of 18