The judgment reaffirms the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in acquittal appeals and underscores the requirement for clear and compelling evidence to overturn a judgment of acquittal.

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 29/12/1995 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.25 of 1994 acquitting the respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original accused Nos.1 to 4 from the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 114 of Indian Penal Code.

It is pertinent to note that the appeal against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 – original accused Nos.2 to 4 has been dismissed at the time of admission of the appeal vide order dated 27/08/1996. Hence, the present appeal is proceeded against the respondent No.1 – original accused No.1.

2. The crux of the case of the prosecution is as under:-

It is alleged by the complainant Sonu Jagtap that all the respondent No.1 – husband, respondent Nos.2 and 3 – sisters-in-law and respondent No.4 – mother-in-law inflicted physical and mental torture and taunted her on the aspect of dowry and compel the deceased to commit suicide and hence, the deceased on 29/08/2992 poured kerosene on herself and set her ablaze.

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.25 of 1994. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 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.

As stated hereinabove, present appeal has been dismissed against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and hence the present appeal is required to be considered qua respondent No1 – original accused No.1.

4. Heard Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State and Mr.Vipul Sundesha, learned advocate for the surviving respondent No.1.

5. Mr.C.M. Shah, learned APP has vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. She has further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in acquitting the respondent No.1 – accused No.1 from the charges levelled against him. She has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondent No.1 has committed offence under sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. She has further argued that Sessions Court has acquitted the respondent accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. She has further argued that the trial court has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. She has further argued that the offence punishable under sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the Sessi