R. T. Vachhani, J
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the deceased Rasilaben had taken place only three months prior to the incident with accused No. 2 Prakash alias Babo Govindbhai Chovatiya. During this short married life, all the four accused, along with juvenile accused Nitaben, taunted the deceased regarding household work, cooking and not bringing dowry, thereby subjecting her to mental cruelty. On 24.08.2001, in the farm shed owned by the accused at village Kharchiya, all the accused strangled Rasilaben with a cotton rope causing her death. To conceal the homicide, accused No. 1 Govindbhai Mavjibhai inflicted six injuries resembling snake bites on the area between the big toe and ankle of the right foot of the deceased using an iron needle and placed a handkerchief over her mouth to hide the ligature marks on the neck, falsely projecting the death as one due to snake bite.
2.2. Accordingly, FIR being Jasdan Police Station came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jasdan, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot where it was registered as the present Sessions Case.
3. On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances to the respondents-accused under Section 313 of the Code. The respondents-accused denied all allegations and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-accused.
4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Sessions Court.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be set aside because the medical evidence conclusively proves homicidal death by strangulation, the deceased died within three months of marriage under unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home, and the prosecution witnesses, though partly resiling from their police statements, had consistently narrated dowry-related harassment and the attempt to pass off the murder as snake bite. He therefore prays for allowing the appeal.
6. The incident took place on 24.08.2001 in the farm shed at village Kharchiya belonging to the accused persons. The deceased was living in a joint family with all four accused. The father of the deceased reached the spot soon after being informed and noticed ligature marks on the neck covered by a handkerchief as well as artificial injuries on the foot. The only persons who had access to the deceased at the relevant time were the four accused and the juvenile accused Nitaben. The complainant and several close relatives, though declared hostile by the sessions court, had in their police statements clearly narrated repeated demands for groceries, taunts regarding household work and cooking, and threats that if demands were not met another marriage would be arranged. Despite the witnesses resiling in Court, the prosecution evidence, when read with the undisputed medical evidence and the short duration of marriage, sufficiently establishes cruelty, dowry death and homicide by strangulation. The attempt to fabricate snake bite and the conduct of the accused in hurrying for last rites without informing the police further strengthen the prosecution case.
7. At the outset, evidence of PW-2 - Gokalbhai Ratnabhai Thumar, the complainant and father of the deceased, examined at Exh.19 is required to be seen. The said witness has deposed in his testimony about the occurrence of the death of his daughter Rasilaben. He has deposed that the marriage of Rasilaben had taken place only three months prior and whenever she visited her parental home, she complained of harassment by the accused persons regarding household work, cooking and not bringing dowry. This witness has further deposed that on 24.08.2001, he received information about Rasilaben being bitten by an animal and upon reaching the matrimonial home at Kharchiya, he found her body with a towel covering the neck. Upon removal of the towel, ligature marks were visible on the neck and artificial injuries resembling snake bite were noticed on the right foot. This witness has identified the muddamal articles such as towel, rope and iron needle. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence, however nothing substantial showing the non-involvement of the accused persons in the crime or disproving the harassment has come on record from the evidence of this witness. However, during the cross-examination, certain omissions and contradictions in relation to the exact complaints made by the deceased, the sequence of events upon reaching the spot, and the statements made by accused No.1 regarding suicide surfaced in consonance with the medical evidence and other witnesses, and therefore the evidence of the complainant comes under the shadow of doubt.
8. PW-8 - Jamkuben Gokalbhai, mother of the deceased, examined at Exh.64, has deposed that during Rasilaben's visits to the parental home, she personally heard her daughter complaining about taunts from the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law regarding cooking and household work, and that the in-laws used to say things like "if demands are not met, another marriage will be arranged". However, in cross-examination, she has admitted that these complaints were general in nature and not specifically about dowry or monetary demands. She has resiled from the details given in her police statement regarding physical harassment or repeated demands for dowry. She has conceded that she advised her daughter to adjust and that things would improve with time. She has denied seeing any visible injury on the deceased during visits. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution as her testimony materially dilutes the severity and frequency of harassment alleged in the FIR.
9. PW-6 - Haresh Gokalbhai, brother of the deceased, examined at Exh.61, initially stated in examination-in-chief that his sister used to confide in him about mental torture by the accused family over small household issues. However, in cross-examination, he has admitted that he never personally witnessed any such incident and his knowledge was only hearsay from the deceased. He has resiled from his police statement wherein specific instances of taunts and threats of second marriage were mentioned. He has stated that the deceased appeared normal during visits and never expressed fear of life. He has been declared hostile as he failed to support the prosecution's case on cruelty linked to dowry demands.
10. PW-7 - Nirmalaben Parsotambhai, PW-9 - Nirmalaben Hareshbhai, PW-10 - Champaben Jayantibhai, and other close female relatives of the deceased have been examined. These witnesses, being from the parental side, had opportunities to interact with the deceased during her visits. In their police statements, they had supported allegations of repeated mental harassment and demands for dowry. However, in court, all of them have turned hostile and stated that the deceased never complained of serious cruelty or dowry demands, but only minor adjustments issues common in new marriages. They have denied hearing any threats like "if the mother dies, we will marry another" and have stated that the deceased was treated well. Their cross-examination by the prosecution has not yielded any material support to the allegations in the FIR.
11. PW-11 - Mansukhbhai Savjibhai, the village sarpanch who accompanied the complainant to the spot, examined at Exh.67, has deposed that accused No.1 informed him about snake bite but later admitted it was suicide to avoid police trouble. However, in cross-examination, he has clarified that this conversation was brief and he did not probe further. He has not supported any prior knowledge of dowry harassment or cruelty towards the deceased.
12. From the evidence of the aforesaid close relatives and the sarpanch, it is evident that while some general complaints about adjustment in joint family were made by the deceased during visits, none of the witnesses have consistently supported specific allegations of systematic cruelty, physical torture, or harassment linked to dowry demands. Most key witnesses from the parental side have resiled from their police statements and have been declared hostile, significantly weakening the prosecution case on Sections 498-A and 304-B.
13. PW-5 - Police Inspector Sukhdevsinh Hanubha Zala, the Investigating Officer, examined at Exh.48, has deposed about recording statements of these relatives wherein allegations of cruelty were mentioned. However, he has admitted in cross-examination that no independent neighbours or villagers were examined to corroborate ongoing harassment at the matrimonial home. He has further admitted that before adding Section 302, no further statements of these witnesses were recorded to clarify the initial version of suicide conveyed by accused No.1. This omission has allowed material improvements and contradictions to remain unexplained, further eroding the reliability of the oral evidence on motive and cruelty.
14. Thus, the only evidence in support of the prosecution case rests primarily on the testimonies of close relatives of the deceased, which suffer from serious infirmities, including material contradictions, omissions, resiling from police statements, and declaration of key witnesses as hostile. Most witnesses have diluted or denied specific allegations of systematic cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demands, restricting the complaints to general adjustment issues common in matrimonial life. In such circumstances, the Sessions Court rightly held that it is not safe to convict the accused on the basis of such unreliable and inconsistent evidence. The medical evidence establishes homicidal death by strangulation and the attempt to fabricate a snake bite scenario, but the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the motive of cruelty or harassment soon before the death in connection with dowry demands, as required for offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. In the absence of reliable corroboration and in view of the glaring infirmities pointed out by the Sessions Court, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not only a possible view but the only reasonable view on the evidence on record.
15. It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available under fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, and secondly, such presumption is further reinforced and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed by the sessions Court. Unless the findings of the Sessions Court are shown to be perverse or manifestly erroneous, the appellate Court will not interfere merely because another view is possible.
16. At this stage, this Court may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415]
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the 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 reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions 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."
17. In the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 581] the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
"8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
18. In the light of the above discussion and the settled legal position, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2001 does not call for any interference.
19. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal is confirmed. Records and Proceedings, if any, be remitted to the Court concerned forthwith.
