JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 07.02.1995, passed in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1993 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, recording the acquittal.

2. It is reported that respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have already expired and therefore, appeal is abated against respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Therefore, appeal is heard only qua respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief are that marriage of deceased Madhuben was solemnized with Jethabhai – respondent No.3 herein before one year of the incident. It was Madhuben’s second marriage. Before this marriage, Madhuben was married in Surendranagar but since her first husband was mentally unfit, she has taken divorce from him. Her husband – Jethabhai has also married previously. However, his wife has expired and therefore, he married to Madhuben. Jethabhai was having three children from his first marriage. After their marriage, Jethabhai and Madhuben were residing with these three children and mother of Jethabhai. Jethabhai was having two brothers, one was residing in the same house and other at some nearby place. As per the complaint, Respondent No.3 was not allowing the deceased – complainant to visit her parental house and tortured her physically and mentally. At that time, mother in law – respondent No.1 herein and brother in law – respondent No.2 herein were instigating the respondent No.3 against the deceased Madhuben. Moreover, deceased was pregnant, but respondents – accused were telling her that she has an extramarital affair with her sister’s husband and the child is not of her husband. As per the complaint, with this allegation, respondents – accused were torturing the deceased mentally and physically. On 31.01.1993 at about 8:00 o’clock, when she was at her house, respondents – accused were came there and abused her and then respondent No.1 has pored kerosene over the deceased, while respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have caught hold of the deceased and set her ablaze. When deceased was burning, they left the place. Thereafter, deceased has shouted for help, hearing this, her sister in law and other neighbours gathered and extinguished the fire. They took the deceased to the V. S. Hospital, Ahmadabad. There, she died at 1:00 a.m. on 01.02.1993. The complaint was registered against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”) and Sections, 302, 498A read with Sections 34 and 114 of the IPC against respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

3.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of many witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused and by impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.1995, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned APP Mr. H. K. Patel for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Umang Oza for respondent No.3 – accused. Perused the Record and Proceedings of the case.

5. The learned APP has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of t