K.J. Thaker, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar dated 23.04.2003 rendered in Sessions Case No. 128 of 2002, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the original accused-opponent herein of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused No. 1 Jayendrakumar @ Jayesh Palabhai is the husband of the deceased, accused No. 2 Palabhai Ghaanabhai is the father in law of the deceased, accused No. 3 Jaykumar @ Jashu Palabhai and accused No. 5 Dipak Palabhai @ D.P. are the brother in law of the deceased and accused No. 4 Baluben w/o. Palabhai is the mother in law of the deceased. The further prosecution case is that the deceased was married to accused No. 1 three years prior to the incident and she was residing with her husband along with others in a joint family. That five months prior to the incident, the son of the deceased died due to hysteria. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased took the deceased with them and the deceased was staying in her parental house. The accused including her husband did not come to her for taking her to her in-laws house. However, the accused sent message through her relative that they did not want her as she was very slow in her household work, she did not know household work and that her son expired due to hysteria. The accused thus committed mental torture and as she lost her son also, she committed suicide on 31.03.2002 by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself on fire in the kitchen in her parental house. Thereafter, the deceased was taken in the G.G. Hospital, Jamnagar, where the Police had recorded her complaint, and thereafter, she succumbed to the burn injuries. Thereafter, she died.

2. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") committed the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar, which was, thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case No. 128 of 2002. Since opponents-accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the alleged offences.

3. At the time of trial, in order to bring home the charges leveled against the original accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses as well as the prosecution also produced 18 documentary evidences.

4. At the end of the Trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar acquitted the accused of all the charges leveled against her. On completion of the trial, the Sessions Court passed the judgment and order acquitting the opponents-accused.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

6. Learned APP, vehemently, submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have believed the evidence of Gandhubha G. Sakariya - PSI, who had recorded the complaint of the deceased. The said witness has clearly stated that the complaint of the deceased was registered at the hospital, after making sure from the doctor, whether the patient was in a fit state of mind to give her statement and therefore, the complaint is at Exh:18. She further submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have believed the evidence of Dilipbhai P. Jani-Executive Magistrate, who had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. The said witness has clearly stated that the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded at the hospital, a