ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant–State of Gujarat has assailed the judgment and order dated 02.03.1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, whereby the respondents (original accused) have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B (2), 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (“the Dowry Prohibition Act” for short).

2. Sonalben (deceased) was the wife of respondent No.1Sunilkumar Indulal Thakar. Indiraben Indulal Thakar is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Indulal Ganpatrao Thakar was the father-in-law of the deceased, who has since died and the appeal qua him has abated. Pannaben Mukeshbhai Bhatt is the married sister-in-law of the deceased. The marriage between respondent No.1 and the deceased took place on 04.02.1990 at Borsad. The case of the prosecution is that on the night intervening 12.10.1990 and 13.10.1990, between 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM, respondent No.1 caused the death of the deceased with the help of respondents Nos.2 and 4 (mother and sister respectively). Alternatively, respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 have also been charged with harassment to the deceased for dowry which led her to commit suicide. Hence, they are also charged with abetment of suicide. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondents used to harass and torture the deceased and demanded utensils, a double-bed and a scooter from Rajanikant Bapalal Patel, father of the deceased, at the time of marriage. These articles were given to the respondents and were accepted by them. During the wedding, it is alleged that respondent No.1 demanded Rs.2,000/- to alight from the vehicle and an amount of Rs.10,000/- to sit in the wedding Mandap which was paid by the father of the deceased. Respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 are also alleged to have driven the deceased to commit suicide by making demands for dowry.

3. Upon investigation, as sufficient material was found against the respondents, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The charge was framed against the accused at Exh.10. Later on, the charge was modified and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were came to be added on 28.03.1993. The respondents denied the allegations levelled against them and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case and produced voluminous documentary evidence.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating and examining the oral and documentary evidence acquitted respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the offences with which they were charged, on the ground that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient material to prove their guilt.

5. The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short), were recorded. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code, respondent No.1 has stated that his wife, Sonal, was of a stubborn nature. Before her marriage, she had a love affair with somebody and she often used to say that she does not want to live, as she has no interest in life. He used to counsel her and tell her to forget her past and advise her to live in the present. However, Sonal did not listen to him and often used to get angry without any reason. When Sonal got angry, she lost control of herself and said that she does not want to live and may commit suicide.

6. As per the explanation given by respondent No.1 in his statement under Section 313 of the Code, on the day of the incident he had gone for work in the afternoon. He returned home at 10:00 PM. His wife, Sonal, was not present at home; therefore, he opened the door with his own key and entered the house. He got a telephone call from Sonal that she was at Jagdishbhai's house and that he should join her there. Respondent No.1 went to Jagidshbhai's house. After taking dinner, both Sonal and he re