1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Zaver @ Jaliyo Shivabhai Vashram &

High Court Of Gujarat|30 August, 2012
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of 4 law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
====================================== STATE OF GUJARAT ­ Appellant(s) Versus ZAVER @ JALIYO SHIVABHAI VASHRAM & 2 ­ Opponent(s) ====================================== Appearance :
MR LB DABHI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 ­ 3.
====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 30/08/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. The Appeal is taken up for hearing today.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.6.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar at in Sessions Case No.102 of 1994, whereby the accused have been acquitted from the charges leveled against them.
3. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that the deceased Arunaben was serving a teacher at Jasapar and she was living in the house of Bachubhai Gordhan on rent basis and he was happened to be maternal uncle of the deceased Arunaben. The accused No.1, relative of said Bachubhai and other accused were harassing the deceased and the accused made the story about illicit relationship between Bachubhai and deceased. Therefore, the deceased felt bed and she committed suicide by putting herself under the train. Therefore, the offence under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondents were arrested and, ultimately, charge­sheet was filed against them before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.102 of 1994. The trial was initiated against the respondents ­ accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 9 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
5. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 30.6.1999.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP for the appellant – State submitted that the deceased committed suicide due to ill­ treatment meted out by the accused. He further stated that this is a case of provocation, instigation and abetment and the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of incident and committed suicide on account mental tortured and due to subjected cruelty by the respondents accused. He further stated that one chit written by the deceased, which is at Exhibit 24, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.1 abetted the offence of suicide. The accused No.1 spread rumour before suicide committed by the deceased that the deceased was of bad character and deceased had illicit relation with one Bachubhai. He further stated the chit written by the deceased before commission of the suicide get corroboration from the evidence of Manharbhai Gordhanbhia, Amarshi Ashram and Bachubhai, examined as a prosecution witnesses. He further stated that the accused were harassing and giving mental tortured to the deceased. He also stated that the important piece of evidence which a suicide note written in the handwriting of the deceased and same can be considered as a dying declaration of the deceased.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. I have perused the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the trial Court.
9. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant­State. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused made story about illicit relationship between the deceased and Bachubhai and thereby spoiled the image of the deceased. Looking to the overall circumstances, it is not established that the accused made such rumour about illicit relationship of the deceased with Bachubhai and there is no direct evidence against the accused, which links the accused in the commission of the offence.
10. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re­write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
11. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
12. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against her.
13. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
14. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.
(Z.K. SAIYED, J.) ynvyas
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Z K Saiyed
  • Z K