The judgment reaffirms the principle of presumption of innocence, the need for clear evidence in cases of abetment of suicide, and the reluctance to disturb a trial court's finding of acquittal unless it is found to be perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 20.06.2011, passed in Sessions Case No. 38 of 2010 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana, camp at Visnagar, recording the acquittal.

2. Brief facts are that complainant – Devjibhai Hirabhai has filed the complaint against the respondents - accused to the effect that the deceased Sushila was his third daughter. Sushila was married to accused no.1 before 12 years of incident and out of such wedlock deceased has two children. On the day of incident i.e. 13.03.2009 at about 7:00 am complainant received a phone call from the elder brother in law of the deceased that deceased has received burn injuries and they shall came immediately. As he was not well that day, both of his sons with his wife went to matrimonial home of the deceased. After some time, he received phone call of his son Kaushik that deceased got burnt and died and her dead body was to bring at Visnagar Civil Hospital for post-morterm. Therefore, complainant reached the Civil Hospital at about 10:00 am, where his son Kaushik has informed him that deceased was pressurized to commit suicide by her in-laws. It is also stated in the complaint that before few days of the incident, complainant and his son Kaushik received a message that in – laws of the deceased have beaten her and harassed her. At that time, brother of the deceased - Kaushik with his wife visited the deceased and persuaded the in – laws of the deceased not to beat her or harass her. It is also stated in the complaint that on 26.02.2003 deceased had filed a complaint against her husband and in – laws because of ill–treatment and harassment by them. However, compromise was arrived at between the parties in the Court and thereafter elder brother in law of the deceased had come and brought back her to matrimonial house. However, such mental and physical torture didn’t stop and therefore, deceased ended her life by setting herself on fire.

3. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint against the respondents - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Upon filing of such complaint, the investigation was set in motion and the investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses, panchnama of the scene of offence and other panchnamas were prepared, got pospostmortem of the deceased done, muddamal was sent to the FSL, and as there was sufficient evidence against the accused, chargesheet was filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case, the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

5. The learned Sessions Judge before whom the case was committed, framed the Charge. The accused denied the contents of the charge. As a result, trial was conducted by the Sessions Judge. Further Statements of the respondents - accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which accused - respondents denied the charges and prayed for trial. Upon recording of the Further Statements of the accused, arguments were heard by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter trial was resulted into acquittal of all the accused from the charges levelled against them. As a result of which the present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat.

6. Heard learned APP Ms. C. M. Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Tejas M. Barot appearing for the respondents - accused.

7. The learned APP for the appellant – State 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 presumpti