Back
2012 Supreme(Guj) 290
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Z.K. Saiyed
State of Gujarat
Versus
Arjunbhaiuttambhai Chaudhary & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 1238 of 1993—Decided on 15/06/2012
Appearance :
Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, App., for the Appellant No. 1.
Notice Served, for the Opponents No. 1 - 3.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case trial Court order recording acquittal of respondent is just and proper.
Headnote:Head Note :
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — Section 378 — [Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Sections 498-A and 306 — Acquittal — Appeal against — Scope of — Finding as to — Sustainability — The allegation against accused No. 1 husband, accused No. 2 father-in-Law and accused No. 3 mother-in-law is that for getting more dowry amount they started torturing and taunting the deceased and ultimately as a result she committed suicide — So far as demand of dowry is concerned Court perused evidence of complainant and his daughter which is contrary to each other — No independent witness is examined to that effect by prosecution — The complaint in the case is lodged after seven months — The learned trial Court has held and rightly so that evidence on record does not prove the ingredients of Sections 107 and 108, IPC beyond reasonable doubt — There is no reliable and dependable evidence on record to hold that due to abetment, provocation and instigation of respondents accused the deceased committed suicide — The trial Court therefore committed no illegality or perversity in recording the acquittal of the respondent.
Held :
So far as demand of dowry is concerned, Court has perused evidence of the complainant and daughter of the complainant. From the contents of it, total contradictory version appears. The learned Judge has rightly observed that no independent witness is examined by the prosecution. In the oral evidence, the complainant discloses that he has other daughter but he does not know that what articles were given to other daughter. It is also disclosed by the witnesses that complaint is lodged after seven months. Court has perused contents of the FIR wherein date and time of incident is mentioned as 9.11.1988 at 8:30. The learned Judge has rightly observed that looking to the facts of the prosecution case, evidence produced on record, ingredients of Sections 107 and 108 are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as marriage life of the deceased is concerned presumption can be drawn, however it has been held by this Court in a catena of decisions that simply period of the marriage life should not be considered in the absence of any material evidence on record by the prosecution. In the present case, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material on record that due to abetment, provocation and instigation of the respondents accused the deceased committed suicide. [Para 15]
Law Laid Down :
In an acquittal appeal the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment when it is in agreement with the reasons assigned by trial Court acquitting the accused.
Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 30.7.1993 rendered in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1989 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. According to the prosecution case, the complainant Trambakbhai Barkubhai Mahale is residing at Room No. 211, Block No. 7, Bhaktinagar, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad, with his family and he is doing business of selling vegetables. The marriage of Accused No. 1 – Arjunbhai Uttambhai Chaudhari with daughter of complainant – Mandakini took place on 15.5.1987 as per Hindu rites and ritual. The Accused No. 2 – Uttambhai is father-in-law of daughter of complainant. At the time of marriage she was given dowry as per custom of their caste and as demanded by the accused. Thereafter, the accused started torturing and taunting daughter of the complainant for getting more dowry amount. On 17.3.1988, Mandakini wrote letter in Marathi language addressing to the complainant which the complainant received on 21.3.1988. On 18.3.1988, the accused hands-in-gloves with each other demanded dowry from the daughter of the complainant. But on informing the accused that due to poor economical condition he could not satisfy demand of the accused, the accused as per pre-planned burnt daughter of the complainant and hence the complainant filed the complaint.
3. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, accused persons were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against them in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case is Sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions.
4. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused persons, to which the accused persons not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.
7. 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.
8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.7.1993 rendered in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1989 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
9. Heard Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State. She has read charge and contended that the Respondent No. 1 is husband of deceased, Respondent No. 2 is father-in-law and Respondent No. 3 is mother-in-law of the deceased. She has contended that looking to the allegations made against the accused, demand of dowry was made by the accused and when it was not fulfilled by the complainant in the result the deceased committed suicide. Looking to the statement of the father, mother and daughter of the complainant it makes clear that torture and harassment was meted out to the accused by the accused persons.
10. She has contended that the learned Judge has erred in holding that there was no cruelty on part of the accused. They had not insisted for dowry and they had also not insisted to bring dowry from her parents’ house. The learned Judge has erred in holding that there was no liability on part of the accused because on 18.3.1988 at about 6.45 a.m. in the morning the deceased Mandakini c
