IMPORTANT POINT
Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot be a substitute for acceptable evidence and one cannot be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Vipul M. Pancholi, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.07.1996 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.38 of 1996.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal as under,

2.1 An FIR being C.R No.207/1995 came to be registered with Gadhada Police Station for the offences under Sections 363, 366-S, 354, 502, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging inter alia that the original accused no.3, Ahesan Sandhi and the original accused no.2, Hanshaben were having illicit relationship and the said Varsha had seen both of them in compromising condition and the original accused no.3, Ahesan Sandhi had also outraged the modesty of the said Varsha and thus having apprehension about the fact that the said Varsha would disclose the fact of illicit relationship between the original accused nos.3 and 2 and the fact of outraging her modesty, the original accused nos.1 and 3 have poured the kerosene over the body of the said Varsha and set her ablaze and at that time, the original accused nos.2 and 4 have caught hold of the deceased and because of the said burn injuries, the said Varsha succumbed to the same.

2.2 On registration of the aforesaid FIR, the investigation was put into motion and during the course of investigation, the Investigating Agency has recorded the statements of witnesses and collected documentary evidence, prepared various panchnamas and on conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed against the respondents - accused before the concerned Magistrate Court.

2.3 As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the concerned Sessions Court, where it has been registered as Sessions Case No.38/1996.

2.4 During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence as mentioned in Paragraph No.5 of the impugned judgment and order.

2.5 After the prosecution evidence was over, further statements of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Code and thereafter the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order whereby the respondents – accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them, which led to filing of the present appeal by the appellant – State.

3. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the original complainant, Girdharbhai Dhanjibhai Zindiya had filed Criminal Revision Application No.342/1996 before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.01.1997, rejected the said Revision Application and thereby confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the concerned trial court. While rejecting the said Revision Application, the Division Bench has observed that “In our opinion, therefore, the acquittal order passed by the trial court is well merited much less there is any scope for entertaining the revision application. The application is therefore rejected.”

4. At this stage, it is also relevant to observe that during the pendency of this appeal, the respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 have expired and, therefore, the present appeal stands abated qua those respondents - accused. Hence, this appeal is now confined to respondent no.2 - accused.

5. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the respondents – accused.

6. Learned APP, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has referred to the depositions of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW Nos.1 to 22 and also referred to FSL report as well as postmortem note of the deceased and, thereafter, contended that though in the present case, there is no eyewitness to the incident in question, from the depositions of the prosecut