AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi
The State of Gujarat is before this Court being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 13.07.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1989. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused of all the charges levelled against them. The charges are at page No. 8-Exh.3,whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has charged accused No. 1 for an offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas accused No. 2 was charged for an offence u/s 368 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution is set out in para-2 of the judgment, which reads as under:-
It is the allegation against the accused persons that, the accused No. 1 Husenbhai kidnapped Sahenajbanu the daughter of the complainant Isubbhai in the morning on 29/10/88 and she was kidnapped and abducted for compelling her to marry and to have intercourse against her will and committed the rape. Moreover, the accused No. 2 abetted the accused No. 1 in the aforesaid offence and Arvindbhai Patel the accused No. 2 illegally detained Sahenajbanu and thereby committed the offence U/s. 368 of IPC.
To prove its case, prosecution led following oral /documentary evidence:-
Sr. No.
Particulars
Exh.No.
1.
Deposition of Dr.DevendrabhaiKeshavdasSachdev � P.W. No.1
10
2.
Deposition of Chandarmaniben � P.W. No.2
14
3.
Deposition of JyotsanabenArvindbhai � P.W. No.3
17
4.
Deposition of MahebubbhaiIbrahimbhaiShaikh � P.W. No.4
18
5.
Deposition of SahenazbanuIsubbhai � P.W. No.5
19
6.
Deposition of YusufbhaiIsmilebhaiVora � P.W. No.6
28
7.
Deposition of Dr.S.S.Sanghavi � P.W. No.7
31
8.
Deposition of ManilalPremchand � Investigating Officer � P.W. No.8
33
9.
Medical opinion of the Radiologist regarding age
11
10.
Medical certificate
13
11.
School Leaving Certificate
16
12.
Complaint
19
13.
Certificate of check-up of Sahenazbanu by Dr.Sanghavi
32
3.1 The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence led before him, came to conclusion that prosecution is not able to establish its case and recorded acquittal u/s 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Heard learned APP Mr. L.R. Pujari for the appellant-State. Learned Advocate Mr. D.F. Amin appears for opponent No. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. A.M. Parekh for opponent No. 2 isnot present.
Learned APP for the appellant-State vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in recording acquittal. In support of his submission, he invited attention of the Court to deposition of P.W. No. 1-Exh.10-Dr. D.K. Sachdev. He also invited attention of the Court to evidence of the prosecutrix-Sahenazbanu Isubbhai-P.W. No. 5-Exh.19. He invited attention of the Court to evidence of father of the prosecutrix-Yusufbhai Ismilebhai Vora-P.W. No. 6-Exh.28. Learned APP submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated that the prosecutrix has no reason to depose falsely implicating accused No. 1 and for that reason accused No. 2 also.
5.1 Learned APP invited attention of the Court to Exh.11-opinion of the Radiologist, Exh.12-X-ray plat, Exh.13-Medical Certificate. Last but not the least, learned APP invited attention of the Court to evidence of Dr. S.S. Sanghavi-P.W. No. 7-Exh.31, who was serving as Doctor at Civil Hospital, Nadiad.
On careful consideration of the submissions made by learned APP and the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated evidence led before him and has rightly held that the evidence of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence in the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Court has also appreciated evidence of the prosecutrix and even with lenient appreciation of the same, it is not possible to accept the same and therefore, the case of the prosecution does not get substantiated with the help of the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is rightly noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that once evidence of the prosecutrix goes away, evidence of the father of the prosecutrix is only on the basis of information given to him by the prosecutrix and therefore, that also cannot be relied upon.
It is well settled principle of law that in acquittal appeal where there is a possibility of two views, the one which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is also well settled principle of law that the Appellate Court would be slow in interfering with an order of acquittal until and unless the judgement of the Trial Court is perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. In the present appeal, we find that the reasons given by the trial Court are plausible, cogent and convincing. Thus, in light of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed any error in acquitting the accused.
7.1 It is a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is neither required to rewrite the judgment nor to give a fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the court below are found just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy Alias Vemareddy and Another, , wherein it is held as under:
... This Court has observed in Girja Nandini Devi and Others Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhury, 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.
7.2 Thus, in case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court finds that there is no substance in the appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.