CR.A/8/5998 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 859 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of 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 BAROT MANGALDAS CHIMANLAL & 4 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MITA PANCHAL, APP for Appellant(s) : 1, UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Opponent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 2 - 5. MR MC BAROT for Opponent(s) : 2 - 5. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 22/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.1998, rendered in Criminal Case No. 4689 of 1993, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana, whereby the learned Magistrate has CR.A/8/5998 2/5 JUDGMENT acquitted all the accused from the offences charged against them. 2. The short fact of the prosecution case is that the complainant Bhavnaben married with one Pareshkumar Mangaldas Barot – original accused (respondent No.4 herein). Their marriage took place in the year 1990. Respondent No.1 (original accused No.1) – Mangaldas Chimanlal Barot was father in law, respondent No.2 Madhuben Barot is the mother in law, the respondent No.3 – Jagrutiben is the sister in law and the respondent No.5 – Joshi Raneshkumar Ambalal is one of the friends of respondent No.4 – husband of the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that all the respondents – accused have imposed mental as well as physical cruelty upon the original complainant and also demanded dowry of Rs.1 lac from the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.8.1993 at 16.00 O'clock the respondents No.4 & 5 went to the place of complainant and there they gave abuses and also threaten the complainant to kill her. 3. The complainant lodged the complaint against the present respondents. Offences under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2), 114 I.P. Code and also under Section 3 & 7 of Dowry Act was registered against the accused. Thereafter the respondents were arrested and charge- sheeted before the trial Court. Charge Ex.9 was framed against the accused. During the trial original accused No.1 – Barot Mangaldas Chimanlal – father in law of the CR.A/8/5998 3/5 JUDGMENT complainant died. The said fact was reported before the trial Court vide purshis Exh.25 and, therefore, accused No.1 was abated by the learned Magistrate. Plea was recorded against the accused – present respondents. Evidence was recorded and after recording the evidence Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the respondents have claimed that they all are innocent and falsely involved by the complainant in the commission of offence. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence the trial Court acquitted all the accused from the offences charged against them. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and order dated 20/7/1998 rendered by the learned J.M.F.C., Mehsana, Mehsana, in Criminal Case No. 4689 of 1993, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 5. Heard learned APP Ms. Mita Panchal for the State and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Manubhai Barot, on behalf of the respondents – original accused. 6. It is contended by learned APP that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provision of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the fact that the incident took place at the residence of the complainant and the complainant has no reason to falsely involve her own husband and in-laws. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is established that the prosecution has proved its case beyond CR.A/8/5998 4/5 JUDGMENT reasonable doubt. Learned APP has also read the oral as well as the documentary evidence. 7. On behalf of the respondents – accused learned Advocate Mr. Manubhai Barot has contended that the matter is very old. He has also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended that the complainant it interested witness and just to get illegal demand from the husband and in- laws she has fabricated the story and filed false complaint against the respondents. Mr. Barot has also contended that there is no independent witness to support the say of the complainant. The prosecution has no material to establish its prima facie case to prove the charge levelled against the respondents. Lastly, he contended that the learned Magistrate has assigned cogent and material reason and after fully appreciating the evidence the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused from the offences charged against them. 8. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. From the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt. When the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused then the accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and there is no reason to interfere CR.A/8/5998 5/5 JUDGMENT with the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate. 9. It is settled legal position that in acquittal Appeal the appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s. HEMAREDDY, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417, has observed that when the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court then the re-discussion of evidence is not necessary. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents – accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. 10.In view of above discussion, I see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the trial Court. Hence, this Appeal requires to be dismissed. 11.In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 20.7.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehsana, in Criminal Case No. 4689 of 1993 acquitting the respondents – accused, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled. (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) sas