Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case order and judgment of acquittal of respondent valid and no interference is called for.

Z.K. Saiyed, J.—The present Appeal, under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 13.04.2000 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1999, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the charges alleged against him. Against the said Judgment, the appellant – State has filed present Appeal against respondents – original accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of victim Neetaben, the daughter of the complainant was solemnized with the accused on 18.5.1998 i.e. prior to the date of incident. The accused – respondent and the deceased were staying at Keshod. It is alleged that the deceased was used to meet her relatives at Keshod which was not liked by the accused. It is also alleged that the accused was doubting about the character of the deceased and, therefore, the deceased was harassed by the respondent – accused. It is alleged that because of this mental torture the deceased had swallowed poisonous tablets and committed suicide. Therefore, the father of the deceased lodged complaint before Keshod Police Station against the accused – respondent for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A of I.P. Code which was registered as CR No. 186 of 1998.

3. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the respondents – accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondents – accused. The respondents – accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and relied upon the documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the respondents – accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges alleged against him.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.

6. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.

7. Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is without appreciating the facts and evidence on the record. She has read the charge and the oral evidence of the witnesses. She has contended that the marital life of the deceased with the respondent was only for 2 months and it clearly appears that due to mental harassment by the accused, the deceased was compel to commit suicide. She has contended that the evidence of witness examined by the defence is also not reliable as the said witness is having enmity with the complainant and the deceased. She has contended that looking to the evidence produced on the record, it clearly appears that the deceased has committed suicide at the instance of respondent – accused and, therefore, the learned Judge has committed grave error in not believing the case of the prosecution. She has also read the provision of Evidence Act and contended that the presumption is also required to be drawn against the present respondent – accused. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, prima facie, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has committed grave error of acquitting the accused from the