JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2007, passed in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Ahmedabad City, recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that marriage of deceased complainant had been solemnized with the son of the respondent No. 1 herein – original accused No. 1 and brother of the respondent No. 2 herein – original accused No. 2 prior to about six years of the incident in question as per the rites and rituals of their caste and were residing in the joint family. It was the case of the prosecution that after the marriage, the respondents, so often, used to harass the deceased physically and mentally saying that she used to go out with someone else and also taunting. Being fed up, the deceased, eventually, committed suicide on 27.12.2004 at about 15:45 hours at her matrimonial home by pouring kerosene on her body and setting her ablaze. Thus, the respondents committed the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”) for which, FIR came to be registered against them.

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 11 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 Judge trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant – State and learned advocate Ms. Farhana Mansuri for the for the respondents - 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. She submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondents – accused.

3.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the medical evidence of PW-9 Dr. Saumil Premchandbhai Merchant, Exh. 27, who had performed the post mortem of the deceased. It is submitted that from the Post Mortem Report, Exh. 28, it is crystal clear that the injuries were anti mortem and the cause of death was due to shock as a result of burns and its complications. It is submitted that though the medical evidence supports the prosecution case, there was no reason for the learned trial Judge to disbelieve such evidence on record. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that for the last about six years of the incident in question, the respondents - accused were taunting and causing harassment to the deceased, which led her to commit suicide at her matrimonial home, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to take into consideration the said aspect of the matter and has committed error in coming to such a conclusion.

3.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the Dying Declaration was recorded by the competent authority i.e. the Executive Magistrate - Shri Baluji Ditaji Solanki, who was