The judgment emphasizes the requirement for trustworthy evidence, corroboration for drawing presumptions, and the need to prove cases beyond reasonable doubt.

G.B. Shah, J.

1. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 21/01/2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2008, whereby, the appellants herein-original accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the offences punishable under Section 306 and 114 of the IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that prior to four months of the date of incident i.e. 15/01/2008, the accused No. 1, a resident of Vadodara, used to quarrel with his deceased wife - Indiraben Jagdishbhai Sargara (Marwadi) after consuming liquor, every now and then, which was abetted by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 and thereby, they all were causing harassment and torture to the deceased. When the same became unbearable, on the unfortunate day of 15/01/2008, between 9:15 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a dupatta tied on a fan and thereby, the accused committed the offence alleged against them, for which a complaint came to be lodged.

2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court at Vadodara. The trial Court framed charge against the accused, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under:-

ORAL EVIDENCE
S. No.	Name of Witness	Exhibit
1.	Champaben Khimaji Sargara	7
2.	Rameshbhai Khimaji Marwadi	9
3.	Chhaganlal Khimaji Marwadi	10
4.	Popatbhai Khimaji Sargara	11
5.	Dr. Bijaysinh Ganpatsinh Rathod	14
6.	Raghuvirsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya	19
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
S. No.	Document	Exhibit
1.	Original complaint	8
2.	Inquest Panchnama	12
3.	Panchnama of place of offence	13
4.	P.M. Report	15
5.	Port-Mortem Form	17
6.	Yadi to FSL	20
7.	Preliminary Report of FSL	21

2.2 At the end of the trial, Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') were recorded in which, they pleaded not guilty and false implication. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statements and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused, as aforesaid, by impugned judgment and order. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellants-accused have preferred the present appeal against conviction.

3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Nisha Mishra for Mr. Gajendra P. Baghel, learned advocate for the appellants-accused and Ms. Reeta Chandarana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent-State.

3.1 Ms. Mishra, learned advocate for the appellants-accused, submitted that the trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting the accused. It was contended by her that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly co