IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in an acquittal appeal, the appellate court cannot substitute its own view unless the trial court's findings are demonstrably unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Nirzar S. Desai, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22.6.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.132 of 1994, whereby the respondents accused came to be acquitted for the offences under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under section 498(A), 306, 304(B) and 114 of the 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. At the outset, it was submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shruti Pathak that accused respondent No.1 Khubchand Kamumal Thavrani had expired on 8.2.2023, as per the police report submitted to the office of learned Additional Public Prosecutor on 1.2.2024 along with photocopy of the death certificate of Khubchand Kamumal Thavrani and hence, the appeal would abate qua respondent No.1. Photocopy of the police report submitted by the Police Inspector, Pradyumnagar Police Station, Rajkot City on 1.2.2024 as well as photocopy of the death certificate of Khubchand Kamumal Thavrani indicating that he has expired on 8.2.2023 are taken on record and hence, the present appeal would abate qua respondent No.1.

3. In the aforesaid background, I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shruti Pathak appearing for the appellant - State.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is stated as under :-

4.1 As per the case of the prosecution, on 26.4.1994, one Mohanlal Narandas Sindhi registered FIR before the Pradyumannagar Police Station, Junction Police Choki, by stating that he was a resident of Godhra and is dealing with plastic goods, his mother has expired and father was old age and retired. There were two brothers and six sisters and out of six sisters fifth sister Sheela, age 23 years got married to one Balram Khubchand Sindhi of Rajkot in November 1993. His sister Sheela was residing with her in-laws, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. Her husband is unemployed. His sister never came to his residence after her marriage. According to the case of prosecution, when the complainant came to his sister's residence at Rajkot for two days, his sister told him that her in-laws are getting angry upon her very frequently and are taunting her that their parents have not given her anything and whenever she tried to state the aforesaid facts to her husband, he preferred to remain silent and was not allowing her to write a letter and was not allowing her to go out alone and she started crying. Thereafter, the complainant consoled her and asked her not to take any unforeseen step. He also asked her husband to take her along with her but he was denied the permission and therefore, he went to Godhra alone. He also wrote to the in-laws of Sheela to send her to Godhra but the letters were not replied. On 25.4.1994, at around 12:30 he received a letter from father-in-law of Sheela wherein it was written that he may take Sheela on 15.4.1994 but he may send Chimanlal who happens to be the brother of complainant and after receiving the aforesaid letter, he received a phone call that as the television was set on fire, Sheela has received burn injury and thereafter, around at 2:15 in the afternoon, he received a telegram that Sheela has expired, come soon. The complainant reached Rajkot at the midnight and upon inquiry he found that Sheela has died due to the television set catching fire. However, upon inspecting the room, the complainant found that there was smell of kerosene coming from the room and there were fume spots on the sealing as well as on the wall because of fire and accordingly to him, when the incident took place, only Sheela and her sister- in-law Bhagwatiben were present in the house and therefore, he registered a complaint against the accused respondents.

4.2 In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the Pradyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot for the offence under section 302 of