1. The appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07^th September 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jambusar, in Criminal Case No.970 of 1987, by which the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the opponent Nos.1 and 2-original accused from the charges levelled against them.
2. The short facts of the complainant is that on 13^th April 1987 at about 08:00 hours the present appellant-original complainant along with his cousin, against whom complaint was lodged in the Jambusar Police Station, went to Jambusar Police Station to stand as a surety of his cousin. It is the case of the complainant-present appellant that the opponent No.1-original accused No.1 came in the police station at about 10:00 hours and started misbehaving with his cousin and also severely beat his cousin in present of the complainant-present appellant and thereafter took his cousin in the police custody. It is the case of the complainant-present appellant that therefore, the complainant-present appellant lodged a complaint to the said effect with the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jambusar against the opponent No.1-original accused No.1. It is further the case of the appellant that upon knowing about the complaint, opponent Nos.1 and 2 got angry and on the same day, i.e. 13^th April 1987, they went to appellant's house at about 21:00 hours and filthy abused the present appellant. It is also the case of the appellant that then illegally both the opponents-original accused took the present appellant into custody. It is also the case of the present appellant that when they were on the way to Jambusar Police Station, near Dargah, which is just near to the Jambusar Police Station, both the opponents-original accused started abusing the appellant and threatened him of involving the present appellant in a false case. It is the case of the appellant that both the opponents-original accused gave fist blows to the appellant on his hand, chest and on other parts of the body. Even, both the opponents-original accused gave stick blows to the appellant. It is also the case of the appellant that as many persons were gathered near the Police Station, both the opponents-original accused, let the appellant free to go home. It is also the case of the appellant that since the appellant feared that he would be beaten again if he would go to Police Station to file a complaint against both the opponents-original accused, he did not go to Police Station to lodge any complaint. However, the appellant gave information about the incident to D.S.P., Bharuch by phone. Thereafter, the appellant went to Refral Hospital, Jambusar, where he was given preliminary treatment and he was referred to Vadodara Government Hospital for further treatment. It is the case of the appellant that at Vadodara Government Hospital, it was confirmed that there was a fracture on the right hand thumb of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that on the next day there was a holiday and hence, the appellant lodged a complaint on 15^th April 1987 with the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jambusar.
3. Thereafter, summons was issued against the both the opponents-original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 325, 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, both the opponents appeared before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, charge was framed against both the opponents-original accused below Exhibit 15. Both the opponents pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the case. After filing closing pursis, further statement of the opponents-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Both the opponents-accused did not step into witness box and did not examine any defence witnesses.
4. Thereafter, trial was conducted before the learned Magistrate. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the present opponents-original accused from the charges alleged against them by the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07^th September 1999.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07^th September 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jambusar in Criminal Case No.970 of 1987, the appellant-original complainant, has preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal.
6. Heard Mr.M.A. Kharadi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Nikhil Vyas, learned counsel for Mr.B.M. Mangukiya, learned counsel for the opponent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opponent No.3-State. I have also gone through the papers produced before me and the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate.
7. Mr.Kharadi, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Magistrate has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has also contended that from the medical certificate also, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as also without appreciating the oral evidence of the witnesses, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the opponents-original accused. He has also contended that the appellant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and produced sufficient evidence to connect the opponents with the offence in question. However, without appreciating the evidence produced on record by the appellant, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. He has contended that the appellant has proved its case against the opponents -original accused beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, contended that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is without appreciating the facts of the case and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
8. Heard Mr.Nikhil Vyas, learned counsel for Mr.B.M. Mangukiya, learned counsel for the opponent Nos.1 and 2. It is argued by Mr.Vyas, learned counsel for the opponents-original accused that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has argued that from the oral evidence of the witnesses, it is established that there was animosity against the opponents-original accused and therefore, a false complaint is filed against them. It is also argued by Mr.Vyas that though the opponent Nos.1 and 2 have also explained probable defence in the statement recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same was rightly considered by the learned Magistrate. He, therefore, contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate is absolute just, proper and correct and therefore, it is not required to be interfered.
9. It is a 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 Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. 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. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed.
10. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
11. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
12. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.
13. 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.
14. I have gone through the order of acquittal 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 learned advocates for the parties.
15. The trial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, observed that prosecution has failed to prove his version by leading cogent evidence. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that prosecution has failed to prove the contents of the complaint by leading evidence. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that on the contrary, there is substance in the probable defence of the opponent Nos.1 and 2-original accused. It is true that prosecution has produced medical certificate, but prosecution has failed to corroborate the Certificate with the injuries. Thus, prosecution has has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the opponent Nos.1 and 2-original accused. The learned Magistrate has observed that there are serious lacuna in the oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing is produced on record of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of the Trial Court.
12. Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charges against the opponent Nos.1 and 2-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the opponent Nos.1 and 2-original accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Mr.Kharadi, learned counsel for the appellant, is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record.
14. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the opponent Nos.1 and 2-original accused of the charges levelled against them.
15. I find that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
16. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. The Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 07^th September 1999 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jambusar, in Criminal Case No.970 of 1987, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.