IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal against acquittal – When two views are possible, judgment and order of acquittal passed by trial Court should not be interfered with by Appellate Court unless for special reasons.

JUDGMENT (CAV)

This appeal is filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, passed in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that on 29.10.2004, Anjuben – daughter of complainant – Bhaya Bhagwan Sevra committed suicide by jumping into the well with her minor daughter on account of physical and mental harassment from the respondents – accused, since it is alleged that accused No.1 – husband of deceased Anjuben was having illicit relationship with his sister in law and deceased has tried to stop him. The complainant lodged the FIR in question against the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”).

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the respondents - accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the respondents - accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.12.2010, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents - accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C. M. Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Pinank Raiyani for learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch for the for respondents – accused. Since respondent No.3 expired pending appeal, the appeal stands abated against respondent No.3.

3.1 The learned APP has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the impugned judgment of 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 respondents– accused.

3.2 The learned APP further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons have harassed the deceased mentally and physically, which led her to commit suicide.

3.3 The learned APP for the appellant – State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

3.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has ignored the settled legal position on trial and thereby, has erred in coming to such a conclusion.

3.5 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 an error in recording acquittal. It is 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.

3.6 Thus, the learned APP has submitted that although cogent and material evidence had been produced by the prosecution and the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Co