The court emphasized the importance of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Surat, in Sessions Case No.117 of 2009 below Exh.33, acquitting the respondents-accused from the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code along with Sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the present appeal has been filed under 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The facts of the prosecution’s case, in nutshell, are as under :

(1) That the marriage of deceased Jantunnisha had taken place with accused no.1 Hadisullah Bahadurali Chaudhari on 12.5.2008 according to the custom of the Muslim community. It is further the case of the prosecution that the husband of the deceased was doing embroidery work at Surat and therefore she was staying at Surat in a joint family along with her husband as well as mother-in-law and father-in-law. It is further the case of the prosecution that prior to the marriage of the sister of the complainant, i.e. at the time of engagement of his sister, the accused persons were given Rs.1,50,000=00 towards dowry and thereafter the marriage of the sister of the complainant had taken place in which Rs.2,50,000=00 was incurred as expenses of marriage. It is further the case of the prosecution that after her marriage, the husband of the deceased had demanded motorcycle and accordingly Splendor Motorcycle at the cost of Rs.50,000=00 was purchased and given to him. Even though, the husband of the deceased as well as the father-in-law and mother-in-law had demanded Rs.50,000=00 from the complainant, which was not given to him and accordingly, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband as well as father-in-law and mother-in-law. Thereafter, on 17.2.2009, the complainant had received telephonic message that the deceased Jantunnisha committed suicide by hanging herself. Therefore, the complainant along with his brother and relatives, gone to the house of the deceased and made inquiry from neighbours. During the inquiry, the complainant came to know that the deceased Jantunnisha has committed suicide by hanging herself on 17.02.2009 at about 12:00 hours. Thus, the accused persons made demand of Rs.50,000=00 towards dowry, which was not satisfied by the complainant and therefore she was subjected to cruelty by her husband as well as father-in-law and mother-in-law. Therefore, on 19.02.2009, the complainant lodged the aforesaid complaint before the Police Inspector, Sachin Police Station, for the alleged offences under Section 498(A), 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered and investigation was carried out.

(2) That on the basis of the complaint, the investigation was carried out. During the investigation, the police recorded statements of witnesses, drawn necessary panchnama and as there was sufficient evidence connecting the respondents with the crime, charge-sheet was filed before the court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3) That as the offences committed by the respondents were absolutely triable by the court of learned Sessions Judge, the same was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Surat, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and numbered as Sessions Case No.117 of 2009.

(4) That thereafter the respondents were issued summons and after receipt of the summons, the respondents had appeared before the Hon’ble Court, wherein they pleaded not guilty for the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried.

(5) That to prove the charges levelled against all the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and produced and relied upon 11 do