JUDGMENT :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.09.1995 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.134 of 1993 for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents - accused. The present appeal is abated qua respondent No.2 vide separate order dated 14.03.2022 passed by this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the deceased - Ranjanben got married with accused No.1 - Dipakkumar Sakarchand Raval before four years from the incident. Due to the demand of dowry, the deceased has committed suicide by jumping in the Well. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased - Bhalchandra Hiralal Rawal has given a complaint with regard to the incident before the Vijapur Police Station, District : Mehsana, which was registered for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence in form of medical evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the learned competent Court and in turn, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Vijapur as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court concerned, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.9 against the respondents accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined some witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, described in the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah appearing for the applicant - State and Mr. Jani for respondents No.1 and 3 and have minutely examined the documentary evidence provided to us by learned APP during the course of hearing. Pending appeal, respondent No.2 expired and therefore appeal qua him came to be abated.

8.1 In the deposition of PW-1 - Bhalchandra Hiralal Rawal at Exh.15, who happened to be the brother of the deceased and who is a complainant, he has stated that, deceased Ranjanben has not stated anything to him about harassment and/or dowry by the husband and by the in-laws. He has only stated in his deposition that, deceased Ranjanben has informed his wife about demand of scooter by her husband when they met during Navaratri festival and nothing further is told by deceased Ranjanben to his wife about any harassment.

8.2 Moreover, PW-2 - Pushpaben Bhalchandra Rawal (Exh.18) in her deposition has admitted that deceased Ranjanben was residing separately from her father-in-law and mother-in-law since last six months and was used to write letters at Mumbai where she has always shown her happy life and never made any complaint in the letters written to her. She has further admitted th