The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proving cruelty or harassment for dowry, and the appellate court's reluctance to interfere with the trial court's findings 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 14.06.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 287 of 1992 acquitting the respondent-original accused from the offence punishable under sections 304B and 498A of Indian Penal Code.

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

The accused is mother-in-law of the daughter of the complainant-Alkaben. The marriage of the daughter of the complainant was performed with the son of the accused-Pradipkumar on 18.1.1991. After the marriage, Alkaben was residing at her matrimonial home. There was demand of dowry from the respondent accused but the parents of Alkaben was not able to satisfy the demand of money made by the respondent accused, and hence, there was constant physical and mental harassment to the Alkaben by the accused, as a result of which Alkaben consumed poisonous substance on 13.1.1992 and hence she was shifted to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad where she died on 13.1.1992 and hence the complaint for the aforesaid offence came to be given by the complainant-mother of the deceased Alkaben.

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 respondent-accused, Chargesheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 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 Additional Sessions Judge, which has been numbered as Sessions Case No. 287 of 1992. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The accused person 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 respondent-accused was 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 her. Hence, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal.

4. Heard Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State and Mr. Ghanshyam Amin, learned advocate for the respondent accused.

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-accused from the charges levelled against her. She has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondent has committed offence under sections 304-B and 498-A 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 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, is made out, however, the same is not believed by the Sessions Court. She has further argued that though the prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court not believed their evidence and acquitted