Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Naranbhai Hadabhai Karangiya ... on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 352 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
=======================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
1 YES
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
3 NO
the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question
4 of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of NO
India or any order made thereunder ?
=======================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARANBHAI HADABHAI KARANGIYA AAHER
=======================================
Appearance:
MS MONALI BHATT, APP (2) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. BHAVNA D ACHARYA(6406) for the
Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 28/10/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(herein after referred to as "the Code") challenging the judgment
and order dated 30.04.2007, passed in Sessions Case No. 131 of
2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
No. 4, Jamnagar, recording the acquittal.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 05.10.2006, complainant -
Lakhabhai Ramdebhai Chavda lodged a complaint before the
Lalpur Police Station, District: Jamnagar against the respondent
for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as "the IPC")
stating therein that marriage of his deceased sister Valiben and
the respondent herein was solemnized in the year 1995 and out
of the wedlock, they had a boy child. That, initially, for one year,
their marriage life went good. They were residing in a joint
family. However, thereafter, her brothers-in-law and sisters-in-
law (Jeth - Jethani) as well as her husband all started giving
physical and mental torture and taunting her. In 1998, deceased
had also registered a police complaint for the offence punishable
under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 125 of the Code
against them and the complainant had brought the deceased to
his home, where she resided for about six months. However,
thereafter, since compromise arrived at between them due to
indulgence of some people of their caste, the respondent brought
her back to his home and started residing separately at Vanana.
There too, harassment continued and complain to that effect was
being done by the deceased to the complainant telephonically.
The complainant went to Vanana and persuaded the deceased.
However, when her son Hemant was sick, deceased along with
her husband came to Lalpur for treatment, where, after
treatment, when they were to return and were at Lalpur S. T. Bus
Depot, the respondent took Hemant with him in the guise of
having breakfast and did not return. Thereafter, the complainant
took the deceased with him and kept her with him. Thereafter,
again on settlement being arrived at, deceased went with the
respondent. The deceased withdraw the cases against the
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
respondent under Section 125 of the Code and Section 498-A IPC.
However, about three months thereafter, again harassment was
started, which fact, the deceased had informed to the
complainant over phone prior to about two months and hence,
the complainant went to Sanosara and again persuaded to her
and asked her not to take any untoward step. However, on
05.10.2006 at about 7:00 a.m. one Bhojabhai Karangia had called
and informed the complainant that her sister had committed
suicide by hanging herself in a room at her residence at
Sanosara. Thus, respondent committed the offence in question
for which, FIR came to be registered against him.
2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the
Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 7
witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after
completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against
the accused persons for the offences in question. The case was
committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge
framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial
was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment
and order dated 30.04.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the
accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has
preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Ms. Bhavna Acharya for the for the
respondent - original accused.
3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly
contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that
the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment of
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and
thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The
learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has
failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper
perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of
the respondent - accused.
3.2 The learned APP contended that the learned trial Judge has
failed to appreciate the evidence of complainant - PW-2
Lakhabhai Ramdebhai, Exh. 19, who has supported the
prosecution case in toto, narrating in detail the conduct of the
accused and accordingly, there was no reason for the learned
trial Judge to disbelieve such a crucial evidence on record. The
learned APP submitted that the learned trial Judge has taken a
very hyper-technical view of the matter inasmuch as for a minor
contradictions in the deposition of the complainant, which in fact
cannot be termed as contradictions, he has disbelieved the same.
The learned APP submitted that the injuries, which were found on
the body of the deceased, were of immediate prior to the death
of the deceased. In this regard, she took this Court to the
evidence of PW-1 Dr. Gambhir Singh Samu Singh Koinam, Exh.
11, who had performed the post mortem of the deceased and
submitted that as many as 13 external injuries were found on the
person of the deceased, which according to this witness, were
fresh and ante mortem in nature, which shows that the deceased
was beaten prior to her death. Further, in her submission,
defence has failed to explain anything about the same.
Accordingly, the learned APP submitted that the learned trial
Judge has failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and
has erred materially in disbelieving the case of the prosecution.
3.3 The learned APP has further submitted that the learned trial
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
Judge ought to have appreciated that the accused causing mental
and physical harassment to the deceased by beating her and also
subjecting her to cruelty, which she could not bear and thereby,
the accused instigated her to commit suicide, committed the
offence alleged against the accused and all the ingredients of the
offence punishable under Section 306 and 498-A IPC have though
been proved, the learned trial Judge has committed error in
acquitting the accused.
3.4 The learned APP submitted that Scene of Offence
Panchnama, Exh. 30, Inquest Panchnama, Exh. 28 and Arrest
Panchnama, Exh. 31 are proved in light of the evidence of
Investigating Officer, however, the learned trial Judge has not
properly appreciated the same and accordingly, the impugned
judgment and order is contrary to the evidence on record.
3.5 It is submitted that the deceased had committed suicide at
her matrimonial home and was indisputably, a suicidal death and
in the circumstances, when there is specific case that the
accused used to harass the deceased, the learned trial Judge
ought to have believed the case of the prosecution and convict
the accused. Further, from the investigation papers, though
there was sufficient material against the accused, the learned
trial Judge has failed to appreciate the same and has thereby
erred in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against
him.
3.6 The learned APP, taking this Court through the oral as well
as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that though
the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record and thereby, has committed
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
an error in recording acquittal. He submitted that though all the
ingredients of the offence alleged had been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge did not believe the
same and therefore, the impugned judgment and order suffers
from material illegality, perversity and contrary to the facts and
evidence on record.
3.7 Thus, the learned APP has submitted although cogent and
material evidence had been produced by the prosecution and the
case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court has
committed a grave error in acquitting the accused and
accordingly, he urged that present appeal may be allowed by
quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Bhavna Acharya for the
respondent - accused, while supporting the impugned judgment
and order of the trial Court, submitted that the learned trial Judge
has, after due and proper appreciation and evaluation of the
evidence on record, has come to such a conclusion and has
acquitted the accused, which is just and proper. The learned
advocate submitted that it is trite law that if two views are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against
the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily
interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the
lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality.
4.1 The learned advocate for the respondent - accused
submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused are not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
doubt and as such there is no evidence qua abetment to suicide
as alleged against the respondent and therefore, the learned trial
Judge has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges levelled
against him.
4.2 The learned advocate for the respondent - accused further
submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the
accused as the prosecution failed to bring home the charge
against the accused. She submitted that there is material
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses,
more particularly, PW-6 Dilipsinh Dharmendrasinh Gohil, Exh. 36,
who was the Investigating Officer. She further submitted that
there are many loopholes in drawing Inquest Panchnama, Exh.
28. Further, she submitted that when other family members of
the respondent were residing separately and in the circumstance,
there is no question of ill treatment and harassment by them.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the learned trial Judge has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record and come to such a
conclusion and therefore, it is requested that no interference is
required at the hands of this Court and eventually, it is urged that
the present appeal may be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and
gone through the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court
as well as the material on record. Before adverting to the facts of
the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope in acquittal
appeals. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the
evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However,
the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under the
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person
shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured
his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
5.1 If the facts of the present case are seen, the respondent -
original accused - husband of the deceased was charged with the
offences punishable under Section 498-A, 306 and 323 of the IPC,
trial of which, was culminated into acquittal, which led the
appellant - State to knock the doors of this Court by way of this
appeal.
5.2 It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent -
husband and the deceased - wife had tied the nuptial knot
somewhere in the year 1995. Out of the said wedlock, they had a
boy child. Initial marriage span of about one year was good,
however, thereafter, allegedly, the husband and other in-laws of
the deceased started physical and mental torture upon the
deceased and hence, the deceased constrained to leave her
matrimonial home and thereafter, due to intervention of one
Hardasbhai, belonging to the caste of the complainant,
respondent brought the deceased back and started living
separately, firstly at Sanosara and then at Vanana. However,
thereafter, prior to earthquake in 2001, the respondent left the
deceased at Lalpur only when they had gone for medication of
their son namely Hemant and hence, the complainant brought
the deceased with him at his home, where she resided for about
6 years and thereafter, it is only in July 2006, again due to
intervention of some caste fellows, compromise arrived at
between them and they started living together. However, the
respondent allegedly again started harassing the deceased for
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
which, the deceased stated to have complained the complainant
telephonically and asked him that she did not want live anymore,
as she could not bear the torture and hence, the complainant
went to her home and persuaded the deceased to keep patience.
However, on 05.10.2006, in the morning the complainant got the
message from one Bhojabhai that his sister Valiben committed
suicide by hanging herself and consequently, the FIR in question
came to be registered against the respondent, for which, in trial,
the respondent came to be acquitted of the charges levelled
against him.
5.3 In the said backdrop, if the evidence of complainant PW-2
Lakhabhai Ramdebhai, Exh. 19 is referred to, he has reiterated
the contents of his complaint. If the cross-examination of this
witness is referred to, it appears that the defence could not get
out much from the same as this witness has stuck to his version
in examination-in-chief and nothing contrary appears to have
been found from the deposition of this witness.
5.4 Since inception, it was the case of the complainant that the
respondent - accused used to harass the deceased, physically
and mentally and deceased had to leave her matrimonial home
and indisputably, she had lodged the criminal cases for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as well as for the
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code. It has also come on
record that the said cases had been withdrawn after compromise
took place between the respondent and the deceased and that,
thereafter, the deceased was living at her matrimonial home with
the deceased only. Further, from the deposition of this witness it
can be easily revealed that the deceased was still meted out with
cruelty and this witness has clearly stated that he used to
persuade the deceased that soon her son would get matured and
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
advised the deceased to take care of her son. Thus, considering
the deposition of this witness, he has clearly supported the case
of the prosecution.
5.5 Now, if the deposition of PW-1 Dr. Gambhir Singh Samu
Singh Koinam, Exh. 11, who had performed the post mortem of
the deceased, is seen, in his examination-in-chief he has stated
that he had performed the post mortem on 06.10.2006 and on
examining the dead-body of the deceased following external
injuries were found on the person of the deceased:
1) 8x6 cm abrasion found over back side of left shoulder
& the direction is inward to outward.
2) 4x1 cm abrasion found just inside the injury.
3) 3x3 cm contusion found at front of right upper thigh.
4) 4x3 cm abrasion found, 5 cm below & inward to injury
no. 3.
5) 5x4 cm abrasion found 4 cm below injury no. 4.
6) 1x1 cm abrasion found just below left knee-cap.
7) 4x2 cm contusion found just outside the right knee-
cap.
8) 1x1 cm abrasions of 3 no. found around the back of
right elbow.
9) one abraded contusion of size 1x0.5 cm present at
inner angle of right eye.
10) 3 small crescentic abrasions of size 3 to 5 mm length
found over left side of neck, 3 cm below ligature mark.
11) one linear abrasion of size 3x0.5 cm present over
right side of neck, 3 cm below ligature mark. Injury no. 10
& 11 are found approximately 5 cm away from mid line.
12) 3 abrasions of size 1 to 0.5 cm present just below the
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
ligature mark over right side and it is 8 cm away from mid
line.
13) Ligature mark of about 2 to 3 cm broad & 30 cm long
is seen around the neck, running obliquely, just above the
thyroid cartilage but below the chin. Direction is upwards &
backwards, but it is faded nape region of the neck. The
colour of the ligature mark is brownish-red, & it is
patterned abrasion. Parchmentisation of the ligature mark
is seen.
5.6 Thus, in all 13 external injuries were found on the body of
the deceased. As per this doctor witness, out of these 13 injuries,
12 injuries could be possible by beating and injury No. 13 could
be possible if a person strangulates himself. Besides, if column
No. 19 of the Post Mortem Report, Exh. 12 is referred to, the
doctor has opined that all those injuries were fresh and ante
mortem in nature, which fact has been reiterated in the
deposition of this witness. Nothing substantial could be found
from the cross-examination of this witness.
5.7 Thus, if the depositions of PW-2 Lakhabhai Ramdebhai, Exh.
19 and the deposition of PW-1 Dr. Gambhir Singh Samu Singh
Koinam, Exh. 11 vis-a-vis the external injuries, it can be gauged
that prior to the deceased committed the suicide, she was beaten
as the injuries were found to fresh and ante mortem. From the
overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material on
record, it appears that the learned trial Judge has failed to take
into consideration some material aspects of the matter as can be
summarized below:
i) since inception, it was the case of the prosecution
that the respondent used to harass the deceased;
ii) indisputably, the deceased had filed criminal case
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
under Section 498-A IPC against her husband and other in-
laws as well as also filed criminal misc. application under
Section 125 of the Code for maintenance;
iii) it is only after compromise arrived at between the
deceased and the respondent, the deceased returned to
her matrimonial home as also, withdraw the aforesaid
cases;
iv) the deceased and the respondent were staying
separate only after few months of the married due to
disharmony in marriage life;
v) again also, since the situation did not change, the
deceased had to live with her brother i.e. the original
complainant;
vi) thereafter, again compromise had taken place
between them and the deceased and the respondent
started cohabiting;
vii) thereafter too, after some time, again the deceased
was treated with cruelty, however, on persuasion of the
complainant the deceased continued staying with the
respondent;
viii) the complains of harassment and cruelty were
persisted althroughout i.e. after some time of marriage of
the deceased with the respondent till she died, whenever
they resided together;
ix) the injuries suffered by the deceased were 12 in
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
number and injury No. 13 was due to strangulation;
x) the injuries were fresh and ante mortem i.e. just prior
to the death of the deceased, she had sustained the said
injuries.
5.8 Thus, if the above aspects are considered as a whole, they
are in immediate proximity to connect the respondent with the
crime in question.
5.9 The learned advocate for the respondent has submitted
that there are material contradictions in the deposition of the
Investigating Officer. In this regard, the Court has gone through
the deposition of PW-6 Dilipsinh Dharmendrasinh Gohil, Exh. 36.
It is settled law that for minor contradictions the prosecution
case, which otherwise is proved beyond reasonable doubt, cannot
be discarded. In State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors., MANU/SC/
0228/2011, it is held by the Apex Court as under:
"25. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound
to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal
errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to
lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock
and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions
amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about
the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also
make material improvement while deposing in the court,
such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor
contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or
improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the
core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground
on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The
court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the
witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition
inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render
the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test
credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire
evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
touchstone of credibility.
xxx"
5.10 Thus, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments
or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core
of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which
the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to
form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a
finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. In the
instant case, there may be contradictions in the deposition of this
witness, however, the same cannot be termed as so major to
reject the case of the prosecution in entirety.
5.11 The learned trial Judge has observed that no independent
witness/es have been examined by the prosecution, nor even the
son of the deceased. In this regard, if the facts of the case are
again seen, the incident had occurred at the matrimonial home of
the deceased only. Further, the deceased and the respondent
were residing separately from other family members. It is trite
that in matrimonial matters, whatever happens, it is within four
corners and generally, save and except family members or close
persons, nobody interferes and knows and hence, the prosecution
case cannot be thrown out merely on the basis that no
independent witness has been examined more particularly, when
the other circumstances and the evidence are sufficient enough
to bring home the charge against the accused. Further, there is
nothing on record so as to believe or hold that the witnesses
have shaken from their testimonies in the cross-examination. It
is no doubt a settled rule of prudence that the evidence of a
related or interested witness should be examined meticulously,
but once the Court is satisfied that his/her testimony is credible,
then the said evidence can be relied upon even without
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
corroboration. In Seeman alias Veeranam v. State,
MANU/SC/0395/2005, the Apex Court has held as under:
"4. It is now well settled that the evidence of witness
cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a
related witness or the sole witness, or both, if otherwise the
same is found credible. The witness could be a relative but
that does not mean to reject his statement in totality. In
such a case, it is the paramount duty of the Court to be
more careful in the matter of scrutiny of evidence of the
interested witness, and if, on such scrutiny it is found that
the evidence on record of such interested sole witness is
worth credence, the same would not be discarded merely
on the ground that the witness is an interested witness.
Caution is to be applied by the court while scrutinizing the
evidence of the interested sole witness. The prosecution's
non-production of one independent witness who has been
named in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a
circumstance to discredit the evidence of the interested
witness and disbelieve the prosecution case. It is well
settled that it is the quality of the evidence and not the
quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by
the court to place credence on the statement."
5.12 Thus, as held in the aforesaid decision, the prosecution's
non-production of one independent witness who has been named
in the FIR by itself cannot be taken to be a circumstance to
discredit the evidence of the interested witness and disbelieve
the prosecution case.
5.13 The learned APP has relied upon a decision of the Apex
Court in Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar v. State of Karnataka,
AIR 2013 SC 329, wherein, in para 9, it is observed as under:
"9. Learned Sessions Judge has refused to rely upon the
evidence of the parents, brother and brothers-in-law of
Girija primarily on the ground that they are interested
witnesses. We find this approach to be very unfortunate.
When a woman is subjected to ill-treatment within the four
walls of her matrimonial house, ill-treatment is witnessed
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
only by the perpetrators of the crime. They would certainly
not depose about it. It is common knowledge that
independent witnesses like servants or neighbours do not
want to get involved. In fact, in this case, a maid employed
in the house of the Appellant who was examined by the
prosecution turned hostile. It is true that chances of
exaggeration by the interested witnesses cannot be ruled
out. Witnesses are prone to exaggeration. It is for the
trained judicial mind to find out the truth. If the
exaggeration is of such nature as to make the witness
wholly unreliable, the court would obviously not rely on
him. If attendant circumstances and evidence on record
clearly support and corroborate the witness, then merely
because he is interested witness he cannot be disbelieved
because of some exaggeration, if his evidence is otherwise
reliable. In this case, we do not find any such exaggeration
qua the Appellant. The witnesses have stood the test of
cross-examination very well. There are telltale
circumstances which speak volumes. Injuries suffered by
Girija prior to the suicide cannot be ignored. The pathetic
story of Girija's woes disclosed by her parents, her brother
and her brothers-in-law deserves to be accepted and has
rightly been accepted by the High Court. A1 and A3 have
been acquitted by the Sessions Court. That acquittal has
been confirmed by the High Court. The State has not
appealed against that order. We do not want to therefore
go into that aspect. But, we must record that we are not
happy with the manner in which learned Sessions Judge has
ignored vital evidence."
5.14 A beneficial reference may be made to a decision of the
Apex Court in Jayantilal Verma v. State of M. P.,
MANU/SC/0875/2020, wherein, in paragraph 25, the Court has
held as under:
"25. We are confronted with a factual situation where the
Appellant herein, as a husband is alleged to have caused
the death of his wife by strangulation. The fact that the
family members were in the home some time before is also
quite obvious. No explanation has been given as to how the
wife could have received the injuries. This is a strong
circumstance indicating that he is responsible for
commission of the crime. The Appellant herein was
under an obligation to give a plausible explanation
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
regarding the cause of the death in the statement
recorded Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and mere denial could not be the answer
in such a situation."
5.15 In the instant case also, the respondent - accused has
failed to give any plausible explanation regarding the incident
and has merely denied the facts.
5.16 It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the
burden of proof lies on the prosecution and it has to prove a
charge beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence
and the right to fair trial are twin safeguards available to the
accused under our criminal justice system but once the
prosecution has proved its case and the evidence led by the
prosecution, in conjunction with the chain of events as are stated
to have occurred, if, points irresistibly to the conclusion that the
accused is guilty then the Court can interfere in the judgment of
acquittal to ensure that the ends of justice are met. This is the
linchpin around which, the administration of criminal justice
revolves.
5.17 Thus, on re-appreciation and reevaluation of the oral and
the documentary evidence on record, it transpires that the
prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the ingredients of
the offence alleged are fulfilled. The Court has gone through in
detail the impugned judgment and order and found that the
learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence on record
in its true and proper perspective and came to the wrong
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations,
present appeal succeeds and is allowed accordingly. Impugned
judgment and order dated 30.04.2007, passed in Sessions Case
No. 131 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast
Track Court No. 4, Jamnagar, recording the acquittal is hereby set
aside and the respondent - Naranbhai Hadabhai Karangiya
Aaher is held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 306, 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
6.1 As per the settled legal position and catena of decisions of
the Apex Court, where the minimum punishment is prescribed for
an offence and the Court proposes the impose the minimum
punishment only, in that case the Court is not required to hear
the accused on the quantum of sentence. However, in the
present case, the respondent - accused is held to be guilty for
the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 323 of
the IPC, where no minimum punishment is prescribed for and
accordingly, the Court has heard the respondent, who is present
in the Court as well as the learned advocate representing the
respondent so also the learned APP on the quantum of
punishment under Section 235(2) of the Code.
6.2 The learned advocate for the respondent has submitted
that the respondent is aged 61 years old now and is not keeping
well. Further, he has a son and both father and son duo are
dependent upon each other. The learned advocate for the
respondent further submitted that the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal is of 2008 and more than a decade has been
elapsed thereafter and accordingly, considering the extant
circumstances, since the Court has found the respondent guilty of
the offences charged against him, it is urged that the Court may
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
show some mercy and it is requested that the sentence already
undergone by the respondent may be considered to be the
sentence.
6.3 As against this, the learned APP for the appellant - State
has urged that since the maximum punishment for the offence
punishable under Section 306 IPC is up to 10 years and fine,
looking to the nature and gravity of offence, maximum
punishment may be imposed.
7. Heard the learned advocates for the parties on the
quantum of sentence to be awarded to the respondent - accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A and 323 of
the IPC to which, he is held to be guilty. It is settled principle of
criminal justice system that if a perpetrator of crime is set free in
that case, the concept of deterrent theory may not work and
there might be adverse effect upon the society. Further, one of
the objects of imposing the punishment is to see that other may
not prone to such crimes in future. Besides that, in the
contemporary situation, the suicidal death by married women is
alarming one. Nonetheless, simultaneously, the Courts, while
passing the orders of sentence, should also consider the facts
and circumstances of each case. Accordingly, having regard to
the submissions advanced and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case on hand, the respondent - original
accused is ordered to undergo the following sentence:
1) for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of two years and
fine of Rs.2,000/- in default thereof, to undergo further
simple imprisonment (SI) for two months;
R/CR.A/352/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/10/2021
2) for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC,
rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of one year and fine
of Rs.1,000/- in default thereof, to undergo further simple
imprisonment (SI) for one month;
3) for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC,
rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of one year and fine
of Rs.1,000/- in default thereof, to undergo further simple
imprisonment (SI) for one month;
4) All the sentences are to run concurrently.
5) The sentence already undergone by the respondent -
accused is ordered to be given set off.
6) The respondent - original accused is directed to
surrender to custody on or before 15th November 2021 to
undergo the remaining sentence as aforesaid, failing which,
the Sessions Judge concerned is at liberty to issue warrant
to secure the custody of the respondent - accused.
7) Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled accordingly.
7.1 Registry to make available a copy of this judgment to the
learned advocate for the respondent - accused and the learned
APP as well as to send to the learned Court below, forthwith. A
copy be also sent to the Superintendent of Police, Jamnagar and
the District Magistrate, Jamnagar.
7.2 Registry to also transmit back the R&P to the trial Court
concerned forthwith.
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]
hiren
