Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 1020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Ismail Ibrahim Motaji & 4 Others – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2008
Decided On : 11-10-2022
For the Appellant : Mr. L.B. Dabhi, APP.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, Mr. Rahul K. Dave.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is strengthened when the accused is acquitted by the trial court. The appellate court should not interfere with the order of acquittal unless there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 498(A), 306 r/w 114 of The Indian Penal Code - 378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the acquittal of the accused persons for charges under Sections 498(A), 306, r/w 114 of The Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed and mentally tortured by her in-laws, leading to her suicide. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of sufficient material and trustworthy evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge meticulously considered the depositions of all the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution did not fulfill the ingredients of the alleged offences. The court upheld the acquittal, stating that the findings did not call for any interference.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in case of acquittal, there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's approach is vitiated by manifest illegality or the conclusion is characterized as perverse. The court re-evaluated the evidence and found contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was confirmed. The bail bond, if any, was cancelled.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Appeal is preferred by the Appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973, against the impugned judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bharuch dated 13.4.2007, recording acquittal of the Respondents/Original Accused Persons for the charges under Sections 498(A), 306, r/w 114 of The Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that the complainant Alibhai Rahimbhai Malek is residing with his sons and wife Hasinaben. The marriage of his daughter Saidabanu took place with one Basirbhai Ismailbhai Malek (A-3) of village Kora nine years prior to the incident. After marriage Saidabanu started leaving in a joint family of the accused no.3 comprising of father-in-law Ismail Ibrahimbhai, Mother-in-law Bibiben, elder brother in law Usmanbhai and elder sister-in-law Anishaben. Fifteen days prior to the filing of the complaint, younger sister-in-law of Saidabanu (the deceased) also started leaving in her family. Initially, the marriage life of Saidabanu run smoothly. However, for last two years, the marriage life of Saidabanu got disturbed and all her in laws i.e. mother-in-law, father-in-law, elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law, elder brother-in-law and sister-in-law Salma started taunting Saidabanu and they were also harassing Saidabanu saying that she did not bring anything from her parental house. Moreover, they quarreled with Saidabanu in trivial matters and as such they were harassing her saying that she used to keep more oil in food she was making. It is further the prosecution case that in-laws of deceased Saidabanu were instigating her husband Basir to ask Saidabanu to get money from her parental house and if she (Saidabanu) refused, they were asking Basir to beat Saidabanu and were doing so. These facts were informed to the complainant as and when Saidabanu used to come to her parental house. Therefore, for so many times the complainant had given money to Saidabanu to give the same to her husband and the said amount reached up to Rs.40,000/-. However, such help which was given from the complainant to accused did not stop harassment and mental and physical torture being meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused. The further prosecution case is that on 7.7.2005, Rafit i.e. son of the complainant received phone call from Saidabanu who was complaining on phone that her in laws, in collusion with each other, started harassing her mentally and physically and also quarreling with her. She further informed Rafik on phone that now she is fed up with such problems and therefore, she would come on Saturday at her parental home along with her children. Rafik, in turn, informed this fact to the complainant. It is the further prosecution case that on 8.7.2005, the complainant returned from his field at about 12:15 hours. At that time, Rafik informed the complainant that he received message from Ismail Ibrahim Patel that he (Ismail) was at Jambusar since Saidabanu was admitted in Jambusar General Hospital as she consumed poisonous medicine. Therefore, the complainant made arrangement of Rs.10,000/ and went to Jambusar from where his nephew Firoz also the complainant took Rs.4000/- and thereafter he went to hospital. The complainant had seen Saidabanu in serious condition and she could not even speak anything. At that time, the relatives of the complainant have also approached the complainant. The complainant had deposited Rs.5000/- in hospital as advance amount. However, no one was present when Saidabanu was admitted in hospital except her husband Basir, accused no.3. Till morning of 9.7.2005 as Saidabanu did not become conscious, Dr. Tusharbhai Patel advised to transfer Saidabanu to either Vadodara or Surat hospital for further treatment. At that time, the brother in law of the complainant viz. Hanifbhai also came there and they decided to bring Saidabanu to
