The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, and the standard of review in acquittal appeals.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajendra M. Sareen, J.)

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 20/01/1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.198 of 1994 acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 3 – original accused Nos.1 to 3 from the offence punishable under sections 302, 498-A and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 – original accused Nos.2 and 3 have expired during the pendency of the proceedings and hence the present appeal stood abated qua respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide order dated 13/04/2022 and the present appeal is proceeded against the respondent No.1 – original accused No.1.

2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell is as under:-

It is the case of the complainant – Hansaben that she is residing with her husband, one daughter – Asha and two sons – Dilip and Ravi and is serving in the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation as a sweeper since last one and half years. Her earlier husband Babu Manga expired before two years and he was working in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and service of Babu Manga came to be obtained by Bharat Manga – her husband and she has married with the brother of her husband Bharat Manga prior to one and half years. Out of three children, one daughter and two sons are of her earlier husband and there is no children out of the wedlock with Bharat. Her Father-in-law Mangabhai and Mother-in-law Kashiben are residing besides her house.

It is further stated by the complainant in the complaint that on 27/04/1994 at 2.30 p.m. she, her daughter Asha, both the sons and Bharat were at her house. The amount of compensation of parents of Kishor, who is residing besides their house, was received. The said Kishor asked the complainant to keep the said amount and keep him along with them and do needful to marry him. It is alleged that on coming to know about the said fact, the husband, Father-in- law and Mother-in-law of the complainant abused the complainant and sprinkled kerosene on her and set her ablaze, as a result, she sustained burn injuries on her entire body and as the neighbours had come, the accused tried to save her and thereafter they brought the complainant to the hospital.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started, statement of witnesses were recorded, inquest panchnama was carried out, panchnama of scene of offence was carried out, postmortem report was obtained and after through investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondents – accused persons, Chargesheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence committed by the accused persons was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial in the court of learned Sessions Judge, which has been numbered as Sessions Case No.198 of 1994. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 302 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the Charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, laid evidence, oral as well as documentary. After the evidence was over, Further Statement of the respondents – accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arguments were heard. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against them. Hence, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgement and order of acquittal.

It is pertinent to note that the respondent No2 and 3 - original accused Nos.2 and 3 have expired during the pendency of the present appeal and hence present appeal stood ab