1. The incident has occurred on 21/10/2005. In the incident Parulben had committed suicide at her home. The complainant is the father of the deceased. The story of the prosecution is that the deceased was in love with one Raju @ Rajnikant Govindbhai Rohit. On the previous day to the date of incident, Raju has refused to marry the deceased and as per say of the prosecution, this had led the deceased to commit suiside.

2. The prosecution has examined following Nine witnesses:-

P.W.1 Ex-7 Ishwarbhai Shanabhai Nai

Complainant - father of the deceased.

P.W.2 Ex-10 Jayaben Ishwarbhai Nai

Mother of the deceased.

P.W.3 Ex-11 Praveenaben Ishwarbhai Nai

Sister of the deceased.

P.W.4 Ex-15 Dahyabhai Chaturbhai Harijan

Sarpanch of Bhayli village.

P.W.5 Ex-17 Dinkarbhai Anandrao Patil

Panch Witness- Scene of offence.

P.W.6 Ex-19 Dr. Ashok Krishnalal Mahajan

Dr. conducting Autopsy

P.W.7 Ex-21 Rasiklal Narayanbhai Guna

Hand-writing expert.

P.W.8 Ex-25 Naginbhai Devjibhai Vasawa

Investigating Officer

P.W.9 Ex-27 Kantibhai Naginbhai, A.S.I. & I.O.

3. The prosecution has produced following material documents:-

Ex-9 Suicide Note

Ex-10 Complaint

Ex-13 Inquest Panchnama

Ex-14 Report for P.M.

Ex-18 Panchnama of Scene of offence

Ex-20 P.M. Report

Ex-23 Hand-writing expert’s opinion

4. On considering the evidence on record and submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused for the offence punishable u/s.306 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court has recorded following reasons in support of its order - (i) FIR is delayed one; (ii) Initially, the incident was recorded as an accidental death and statements are recorded by the police in pursuance of that inquiry; (iii) The complainant, his wife and sister of the deceased none of have made any statement involving the present accused, in their statement recorded by the police in pursuant to that inquiry; (iv) That material statement, that had said to led the deceased to commit suicide, namely meeting of deceased and accused on day previous to day of incident and refusal by accused to marry which has been made by the complainant before the Court, has not been made by the complainant either in his FIR or in his statement recorded by the police in pursuant to the accidental death inquiry; (v) That the conduct of the mother of the deceased is ‘mysterious’ . It is so because the mother of the deceased has wasted the time at the time of incident in not taking steps to open the door of kitchen at the earliest, wherein, the deceased has committed suicide; (vi) That the suicide note is not reliable nor the contents of the suicide note is in nature of inspiring confidence; (vii) Referring and relying upon the decision in case of (i) Sanju Vs. Statement of M.P. reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 and (ii) Shivdan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 Cr.L.J. 36, the Court has recorded the conclusion as referred above.

5. Heard Mr.BK Raj learned advocate appearing on behalf of applicant-original complainant. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the learned trial court has committed serious error in acquitting the accused. It was submitted that all the material witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and none has turned hostile. This ought to have been weighed with the learned trial court instead of that this material is brushed aside by the learned trial court. It was submitted that the learned trial court has seriously erred in basing the conclusion also on the fact that the FIR is delayed one and in the facts and circumstances of the prosecution case, the FIR is not delayed one. It was pointed out that the suicide note is found by the police during the course of investigation and it is material document linking the accused with the offence. The learned trial court ought to have taken into consideration the suicide note in right perspective. That the learned trial court has seriously erred in appreciating the suicide note. In the opinion o