Point of law : where the minimum punishment is prescribed for an offence and the Court proposes the impose the minimum punishment only, in that case the Court is not required to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as “the Code”) challenging the judgment and order dated 30.04.2007, passed in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Jamnagar, recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that on 05.10.2006, complainant – Lakhabhai Ramdebhai Chavda lodged a complaint before the Lalpur Police Station, District: Jamnagar against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”) stating therein that marriage of his deceased sister Valiben and the respondent herein was solemnized in the year 1995 and out of the wedlock, they had a boy child. That, initially, for one year, their marriage life went good. They were residing in a joint family. However, thereafter, her brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law (Jeth – Jethani) as well as her husband all started giving physical and mental torture and taunting her. In 1998, deceased had also registered a police complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 125 of the Code against them and the complainant had brought the deceased to his home, where she resided for about six months. However, thereafter, since compromise arrived at between them due to indulgence of some people of their caste, the respondent brought her back to his home and started residing separately at Vanana. There too, harassment continued and complain to that effect was being done by the deceased to the complainant telephonically. The complainant went to Vanana and persuaded the deceased. However, when her son Hemant was sick, deceased along with her husband came to Lalpur for treatment, where, after treatment, when they were to return and were at Lalpur S. T. Bus Depot, the respondent took Hemant with him in the guise of having breakfast and did not return. Thereafter, the complainant took the deceased with him and kept her with him. Thereafter, again on settlement being arrived at, deceased went with the respondent. The deceased withdraw the cases against the respondent under Section 125 of the Code and Section 498-A IPC. However, about three months thereafter, again harassment was started, which fact, the deceased had informed to the complainant over phone prior to about two months and hence, the complainant went to Sanosara and again persuaded to her and asked her not to take any untoward step. However, on 05.10.2006 at about 7:00 a.m. one Bhojabhai Karangia had called and informed the complainant that her sister had committed suicide by hanging herself in a room at her residence at Sanosara. Thus, respondent committed the offence in question for which, FIR came to be registered against him.

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 7 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant – State and learned advocate Ms. Bhavna Acharya for the for the respondent – original accused.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against