JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.3.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.224 of 2006, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under sections 498(A), 306, 323, 114 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State has preferred present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal are that as per the complaint, the complainant is belonging to Vaniya community and she is residing at village Budhel along with her husband and mother-in-law. That on 8.7.2006, while she was at her in-law’s house, her husband has beaten her and sent her back to her parental home. That day before the incident, the complainant was given kick and fist blows by her husband and was subjected to cruelty by her mother-in-law. Rekhaben – sister-in-law of the also abetted husband and mother-in-law of the complainant for ill-treating the deceased. Thus, all the accused persons in abetment of each other, have caused physical and mental torture to the complainant deceased and therefore, the complainant committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting her on fire. Thus, FIR being C.R.No.II - 71 of 2006 at the instance of the deceased came to be registered against the respondents accused for the aforesaid offences.

3. In pursuance of the complaint being C.R.No.II - 71 of 2006 lodged by the complainant with the Vartej Police Station for the aforesaid offences, the investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn various Panchnamas and obtained FSL report for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondents accused, charge- sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Bhavnagar. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.2 against the respondents accused for the aforesaid offences. The respondents accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and also produced 18 documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 3 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondents accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondents accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them as false and further stated that they are innocent and false case has been filed against them. Also pleaded that the deceased was suffering from the headache and pain in stomach and was fed up of the same, set herself to fire. Insofar as accused Rekhaben and Savitaben are concerned, they claimed their absence on the day incident took place.

7. We have heard learned APP for the appellant – State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court.

8. Learned APP Ms. Jhaveri having taken this Court through the deposition of the witness recorded before the learned trial Court would submit that the learned trial Court erred in not appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. She further submits that the learned trial Court ought to have believed the deposition of PW 5 Dr. Jahangir Ratnani, Exh.22 as well as deposition of PW 7 Dr. Abdul Rahim Khokhar, Exh.30, Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at Exh.32. She further submits that even the FIR in the present case has been give by the deceased herself produced at Exh.20, indicates another dying