State of Gujarat vs Bhavansinh Talsinh Rathod and Others

H.B. Antani, J.—Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Krina Calla appearing for the appellant-State. The appeal is admitted.

This appeal is preferred u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008.

As per the prosecution case, complainant - Lalsing Fatesinh Chauhan gave complaint at Dabhoda police station on 27.03.2008. Initially, it was registered as A.D. No. 15 of 2008. After the dead body was recovered from canal, inquest panchnama was drawn and the slip was recovered from the pocket of the deceased. As per the complaint, Lalsing is the elder brother of deceased - Pravinbhai. Pravinbhai got married with Kapilaben at Borpura and, during his marriage, he had one son aged about 1 and half years. As per the prosecution case, Kapilaben-wife of the deceased was pregnant and had gone to her parental home. Subsequently, Kapilaben lodged complaint u/s 498A of I.P.C. before the Court of Mansa and filed maintenance application against deceased - Pravinsing. As per the prosecution case, the slip received by the complainant mentions the names of the respondents and it is stated therein that they were demanding Rs. 5 lacs from deceased - Pravinbhai and they had also threatened him that if he will not give the amount of Rs. 5 lacs, then his family members will be implicated in the Court case. The investigating officer, on the strength of the complaint given by the complainant, carried out investigation and, after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet against the respondents. The chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned 4th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar, who, in turn, made over the case to the Sessions Court u/s 209 of the Code, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The learned Judge, after recording the statements, extensively held that the prosecution has not proved involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of I.P.C. The learned Judge held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution do not inspire necessary confidence. The panch-witnesses have turned hostile and even suicide note is not supported or corroborated by any other evidence on record of the case to indicate the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. Therefore, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of I.P.C.

The appellant-State, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, has preferred the present appeal. Learned A.P.P. Ms. Krina Calla submitted that the learned Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that no case is made out by the prosecution against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of I.P.C. She submitted that the learned Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record of the case and even though the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence was established by the prosecution by placing reliance on suicide note, the same was overlooked by the learned Judge while acquitting the respondents. Thus, it is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the order passed by the learned Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.

We have heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant - State at length and in great detail. We have also perused the Record and Proceedings of Sessions Case No. 36 of 2008 which was before us. Considering the evidence on record of the case, the learned Judge held that the prosecution has not proved the inextricable involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. The oral deposition adduced by the prosecution witnesses do not indicate involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. Heavy reliance is placed by the prosecution on the suicide note but the same does not inspire necessary confidence to indicate involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence. Save and except the suicide note, there is nothing on record to indicate the involvement of the respondents in the commission of offence.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking into account the entire gamut of oral deposition and documentary evidence, we are of the firm view that the learned Judge has not committed error so as to reverse the impugned judgment in the appeal preferred by the State.

We are aware that this is an acquittal appeal in which the Court would be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal. Infirmities in the prosecution case go to the root of the matter and strike a vital blow on the prosecution case. In such a case, it would not be safe to set aside the order of acquittal, more particularly when the evidence has not inspired confidence of the learned Special Judge who had the opportunity to observe demeanour of the witnesses. As this Court is in general agreement with the view expressed by the learned Special Judge, the Court does not think it necessary either to reiterate the evidence of prosecution witnesses or to restate the reasons for acquittal given by the learned Judge and this Court is of the opinion that expression of general agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge would be sufficient in the facts of the case.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to fail and the same is hereby dismissed.