IMPORTANT POINT: It is well settled that if the view expressed by trial judge is plausible one, the High Court should not interfere.

R.P DHOLARIA, J.

The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.6.2004 rendered by learned Joint District Judge and 5th Fast Track Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2003.

2. Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 2005 is preferred by the original complainant against the above referred impugned judgment and order.

3. As the common question of law and facts are involved in both these matters, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

4. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal and revision application are that prior to 11 months of the incident, marriage of elder daughter of the complainant i.e. Bharti took place with accused No. 1 and after the marriage, she was residing in a joint family. It is alleged that initially six months, the deceased stayed with her in-laws but thereafter she along with husband started living separately at Oad village. It is alleged that in-laws taunted the deceased very badly and they were uttering bad words regarding her character and, thereby they were insulting the deceased. It is alleged that accused No. 1 used to go to meet his mother and sister and on return, he used to utter bad words to the deceased. It is alleged that on 29.1.2003 one Kanubhai Parmar, landlord of the rented premises by the deceased and accused No. 1 made phone call to the complainant and informed that his daughter has committed suicide after consuming poison. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused.

5. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences.

7. At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal and the complainant has preferred the Criminal Revision Application before this Court.

9. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such.

10. Mr. L.R Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that though suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37 are involving the present respondents as well as oral evidence of the father - PW 2, mother and aunt Kailash is clearly indicating the role of each one of the respondents, learned trial Court did not believe the same and recorded the finding that the oral evidence as well as suicide notes are contradictory to each other. He argued that suicide notes are required to be read in consonance with the oral evidence as well as allegations made as regards to the character of the deceased which was doubted by the respondents. He argued that though the deceased was residing separately with her husband, but on 27.1.2003 the parents of the deceased as well as respondents met where the quarrel took place and as narrated in their depositions, the deceased was harassed by the respondents and that is direct proximate c