( 1 ) THE acquittal of the respondents (accused for short) of the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal code (ipc for short) recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast track Court, Navsari, vide judgment and order dated 6. 11. 2003 rendered in sessions Case No. 19 of 2003, is the subject matter of challenge in instant appeal, which is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code for short) by the appellant - State of Gujarat.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case as reflected from FIR and unfolded during trial was that on 23. 1. 2003, Vinodbhai Ranchhodbhai Mistry, PW-1, lodged a First information Report at Navsari Rural Police Station against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 323, 504 and 114 of the IPC. Vinodbhai Ranchhodbhai Mistry happens to be the brother-in-law of deceased Jaynaben. As per the narration given in the FIR by him, deceased jaynaben was married to accused No. 1 at village Rumla on 19. 5. 2002 as per the hindu Rites and Customs and since then, she and accused No. 1 were residing at rumla. Along with deceased Jaynaben and accused No. 1, the other accused persons i. e. A2, father-in-law, Balubhai Jivanbhai Lad, A3, mother-in-law, chhibiben Balubhai Lad, A4, brother-in-law, Maheshbhai Balubhai Lad , A5, sister-in-law, Bhavnaben Maheshbhai Lad were also residing in one house. As per the further case of the prosecution, initially for a period of three months, the marital life of deceased Jaynaben and accused No. 1 was quite cordial but thereafter, as alleged, the family members of A-1 started harassing her on trivial matters like household work etc. It was also the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons, in collusion with each other, used to treat her with cruelty and at times the husband i. e. A-1 on instigation from the other co-accused persons, used to assault her. All these facts of harassment was narrated by her to her family members for the first time when she came at the house of her parents during Diwali season. At that relevant point of time, the parents of the deceased felt that it would be in the larger interest of their daughter Jaynaben to return to her matrimonial home with a hope that everything would be fine with the passage of time. About 15 days before the incident in question, Jaynaben came down to her parental home on account of harassment at the end of the accused persons. The first informant and his wife thereafter met Jaynaben and learnt through her that all the accused persons, on one pretext or the other, picked up quarrels with her and were causing lot of mental and physical harassment to her. Jaynaben also informed the first informant that as and when she desired to talk to her mother on telephone, the accused persons did not permit her to talk. It was also the case of the first informant that his mother-in-law i. e. mother of jaynaben had called up the accused persons requesting them to take Jayna back with them but they refused and because of that she was at her parental home since previous 15 days from the date of the incident.

( 3 ) ON 23. 1. 2003, at about 1. 30 in the afternoon, the first informant was informed by Jigisha, the younger sister of Jaynaben, that Jaynaben sustained serious burn injuries. The first informant immediately rushed to Sisodara and found that Jaynaben had burnt herself very seriously all over the body after dousing herself in kerosene. People from the neighbourhood had gathered and one of the neighbours, Nileshbhai Umedbhai Patel, informed the first informant that at about 1-30 in the afternoon husband of Jaynaben, accused No. 1, had called her up on telephone and Jayna had come to talk with accused No. 1 on telephone. After talking with each other on telephone for some time Jaynaben returned home and immediately within half an hour the incident in question occurred. It was the case of the prosecution that, Nile