A.J. Shastri, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.2.2006 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2004.

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that an FIR being C.R. No. I-171 of 2003 came to be lodged before Limbdi Police Station on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant on 18.9.2003 stating that his daughter Lilavati had an affair with accused No. 1-Vijay and were to marry which was opposed by accused Nos. 2 to 4. It was alleged in the complaint that on 25.8.2002 at about 10.30 a.m., Lilavati was called over telephone to the workshop where all the respondents-accused were present. When Lilavati put the proposal of marriage before the accused, they outrightly rejected the same by stating that this cannot be done during their life time and thereafter, she was taken to a separate room where accused Nos. 2 to 4 asked accused No. 1 to do something about the deceased as she will always come in their way. Thereafter, accused No. 1 gave a bottle of acid and asked her to consume half of it and the other half would be consumed by him. Lilavati was then made to consume half bottle of acid but accused No. 1 did not consume. As the condition of Lilavati became precarious, she was taken to Limbdi Hospital and the complainant was informed over telephone to reach there. Lilavati was thereafter shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where she was treated for a month and six days and thereafter on 15.12.2002, although her marriage with accused No. 1 was fixed, accused No. 1 never turned up. However, due to persuasion, marriage was registered on 16.1.2003 while Lilavati was taking treatment at Civil Hospital. On 26.6.2003, when Lilavati was to be taken to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital again, accused were asked to send some money but they did not respond. As the condition of Lilavati was deteriorating, she was again admitted in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and on 10.9.2003, she disclosed the truth behind consumption of acid by informing that said fact was not disclosed by her as she hoped that accused would improve and accept her after marriage. However, Lilavati succumbed to the injuries on 25.9.2003. As a result of which, aforesaid complaint came to be filed before Limbdi Police Station which was registered as C.R. No. I-171 of 2003. The said complaint came to be investigated by investigating officer, who took every step which is required to investigate and after completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. was pleased to commit the case to the Sessions and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 54 of 2004. The learned Sessions Judge then framed charge at Exh. 8 against the accused for the offences which are narrated in it. The charge was read over and explained to the original accused but then, the plea was recorded wherein the accused persons have denied to have committed any offence. Resultantly, the case was put up for trial.

2.1 To prove the case against the respondents accused persons, the prosecution has adduced the evidences in form of oral as well as documentary evidences. The prosecution has initially examined following witnesses which are enlisted hereinafter:

TABLE CHECK

The prosecution has also led the documentary evidences which are also enlisted hereinafter:

TABLE CHECK

2.2 After the evidence being led, a closing pursis was given by the prosecution and further statements of the accused under Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded where they have denied to have committed any offence. Upon affording opportunity of hearing to the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the impugned ju