JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 27.08.2010, passed in Sessions Case No. 477 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, City Sessions Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that the respondents - original accused, who happens to be the husband and the in-laws of deceased, gave immense physical and mental torture as also gave cruel treatment to the deceased on the count of miscarriage as also for dowry. That, though the deceased had bought Rs.52,500/- from her parental home and given to the respondents, the respondents demanded more amount and for that, used to give physical and mental torture, which led the deceased to commit the suicide by pouring kerosene and setting her ablaze. Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for which, FIR came be to registered against them.

2.1 Upon FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence 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, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. It is pertinent to note that by an order dated 20.06.2022 passed by this Court, this appeal is abated qua respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

4. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. P.B. Khandheria for the respondents - accused.

4.1 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.

4.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Taking the Court to the depositions of the witnesses together with the Charge framed by the learned trial Judge, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted though there was sufficient material available on record qua demand of dowry for which the victim was subjected to cruelty and though the ingredients of the offence alleged have been satisfied and proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in disbelieving the same and thereby, has committed a gross error in passing the order of acquittal.

4.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

4.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has ignored the settled legal position and thereby, has erred in coming to such a conclusion.

4.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this Court through the oral as well as the documentary eviden