JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, 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 31.07.2008, passed in Sessions Case No. 135 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 3, Anand, recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that on 07.09.2007, Vimalaben, wife of complainant-Budhabhai Jenabhai Rathod committed suicide by consuming poision on account of continuous harassment and pressure from the respondent-accused to her for keeping illicit relation with him. That, earlier also the complainant had given an application to that effect before the Borsad Police Station, however, the respondent-accused continued such pressure tactics and gave threats, which led the deceased to commit suicide for which, a complainant lodged the FIR in question against the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”).

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 14 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. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.2008, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Pathik Acharya for the for the respondent-accused.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 the respondents-accused.

3.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person threatened to cause damage to her modesty and life of her husband, which led her to commit suicide. Drawing attention to the deposition of complainant - PW-1 Budhabhai Jenabhai Rathod, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant, who is the husband of the deceased has supported the case of the prosecution in toto and narrated the facts as per the FIR, Exh.13, wherein, clear facts as to how the incident in question had occurred are mentioned. However, the learned trial Judge did not believe the same and come to such a conclusion, which is illegal, perverse and against the evidence on record.

3.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

3.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has ignored the settled legal position on trial and thereby, has erred in coming to such a conclusion.

3.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused bey