CR.RA/379/2007 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.379 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA ========================================================= = 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? ========================================================= = LALBAI ASHA HARIJAN - Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. - Respondents ========================================================= = Appearance : MR HARNISH V DARJI for Petitioner. MR KP RAVAL, APP for Respondent No.1. None for Respondents No.2 - 5. ========================================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA Date : 17/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT CR.RA/379/2007 2/8 JUDGMENT The petitioner-original complainant has preferred this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [“the Code” for short] and challenged the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.04.2007 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kutch-Bhuj, in Sessions Case No.20 of 2004 acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC” for short]. 2. The petitioner-complainant lodged a complaint before Mundra Police Station on 27.06.2003 alleging that at about 11.30 in the morning on 25.06.2003 when she with her son Bhavan was returning home, the respondents- accused stopped them on road near Indiravas and told her to ask her son Bhavan to leave the village. On inquiry by her, the respondents-accused informed her that Bhavan is eve-teasing their lady members and also gave threats to them. On account of such threats, they returned home. In the noon at about 1.30, she informed her another son Bhanji about the threats. Thereafter, Bhavan left at about 2 O' clock in the noon without informing them. At about 5.45 to 6.00 O' clock in the evening their neighbour Manji Naran informed them that their son Bhavan has died on account of strangulation at Gangaben CR.RA/379/2007 3/8 JUDGMENT Harijan's house. Therefore, they went to the house of Gangaben and found that her son was lying dead. The deceased committed suicide as the respondents-accused gave them threats and compelled him to commit suicide. 3. On the basis of the complaint, offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC was registered as I-C.R.No.58 of 2003 and investigation was started. On completion of the investigation, the charge- sheet for the aforesaid offence came to be filed against the respondents-accused. As the offence was triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court at Bhuj. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed the charge at Exhibit-1 for the aforesaid offences against the respondents-accused. The charge was read over and explained to them. The respondents-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced the evidence. On completion of recording of the evidence, incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the respondents-accused were explained to them. The respondents-accused in their further statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code denied having committed the offence and explained that they are innocent and false case is filed against them. CR.RA/379/2007 4/8 JUDGMENT After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the respondents- accused, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge and, therefore, acquitted the respondents-accused. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the original complainant has preferred this Revision Application. 4. I have heard Mr.H.V.Darji, learned advocate for Mr.Yogesh Lakhani, learned advocate for the petitioner, at length and in great detail and also perused the Record & Proceedings of the trial Court. 5. It may be recorded that the State has not preferred any acquittal appeal against the impugned judgment. 6. It is settled proposition of law that this Court has very limited powers under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code. This Court cannot reappreciate the evidence adduced before the trial Court. This Court is required to only examine the correctness, legality or CR.RA/379/2007 5/8 JUDGMENT propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed by a criminal court. Therefore, this Court cannot reappreciate the evidence adduced in the trial Court. 7. It appears that the incident of suicide occurred on 25.06.2003 between 2.00 P.M. and 5.00 P.M. The complaint came to be filed on 27.06.2003 at 20.30 hours. Thus, the complaint was filed after about more than 48 hours of the incident. No explanation is offered as regards delay caused in filing of the complaint. 8. The prosecution has produced copy of entry made in Mundra Police Station with regard to suicidal death of Bhavan at Exhibit 22. It appears from the said document that the incident was reported as accidental death and was recorded as AD No.13 of 2003 on 25.06.2003. It also indicates that Bhanaji - brother of the deceased and son of the petitioner-complainant informed the police about the death of his brother and it was given at 18.40 hours on 25.06.2003. This clearly indicates that the informant did not give any information with regard to involvement of anyone in the incident. Complaint, Exhibit 48, indicates that the petitioner-complainant informed Bhanaji about threats. However, the informant did not mention about the same in the information given to the CR.RA/379/2007 6/8 JUDGMENT Police. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the respondents-accused gave any threats and as a result thereof, the deceased was instigated to commit suicide. 9. Prosecution Witness No.1-Lalbai Asha (Exhibit- 9) in her evidence deposed about the threats given by the accused. She has admitted in cross-examination that she has poor vision and would not be able to identify a person from a distance of six seven feet. She has also admitted that she was tutored before her evidence was recorded. It appears from the evidence of this witness that the complaint was lodged after two days of incident, but no explanation for delay is given and she was tutored. It also appears that the witness had poor vision. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that she could have identified the respondents-accused. Even she has not stated as to role played by each of respondents- accused and the words spoken by each of them. Therefore, the evidence of this witness could not be relied upon to connect the respondents-accused with the offence. There is no independent, cogent and reliable evidence to indicate that the respondents-accused gave threats as alleged by the prosecution and on account of such threats, the deceased committed suicide. In absence of such evidence, it would not be safe to rely upon the sole CR.RA/379/2007 7/8 JUDGMENT evidence of the complainant. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in acquitting the respondents- accused. 10. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to indicate that the respondents-accused have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no evidence to indicate nexus between the alleged threats and the suicide of Bhanji. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in recording acquittal of the respondents- accused. 11. It is settled proposition that an order of acquittal passed by a trial Court should be sparingly interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The interference with the order passed by the trial Court is limited only to exceptional cases when it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has overlooked material evidence. Therefore, ordinarily, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the trial Court unless glaring feature is brought to the notice of CR.RA/379/2007 8/8 JUDGMENT the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the High Court in its revisional power does not ordinarily interfere with judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. 12. In the case on hand, the petitioner has failed to point out that there is glaring illegality or that the trial Court has overlooked the material evidence. It is also not indicated that there is manifest error of law or procedure or that there is miscarriage of justice. In view of the above, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Revision Application fails and stands dismissed. R & P be sent back to the trial Court. [Bankim N. Mehta, J.] Rajendra