IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; acquittal is upheld when evidence does not convincingly establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code whereby the the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offences.

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter of the complainant namely Sadhnaben married with accused No.1 as per their ritual at Brampur, Taluka: Mangalveda, District: Solapur, Maharashtra and accused No.1 was serving as driver in Vasudhara Dairy at Chikhali Aalipur, District: Navsari and out of the wedlock, they have one child namely Shubham aged about eight months. It is the case of the prosecution that after delivery of two months, Sadhnaben was brought by her husband and sister-in-law and Sadhnaben was residing with her husband and child at Chikhali and two months prior on 22.05.2008, two kilometer away from the complainant’s Village: Kurul, where a Parmeshwar temple was situated and there was held pilgrim fair, Sadhnaben and her husband came there, but they did not go to the house of the complainant and Sadhnaben made telephone call. It is also the case of the prosecution that Sadhnaben informed the complainant that her husband was demanded Rs.50,000/- and giving mental and physical harassment. After two months, the complainant called Sadhnaben and told that why she did not make telephone call to her husband and thereupon she replied that her husband did not make a call and quarreled with her and, thereafter, the complainant tried to call accused No.1, but he did not respond and even accused No.2 was also demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is further the case of the prosecution that on account of mental and physical torture, Sadhnaben had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and putting herself ablaze and committed suicide.

2.2 On the basis of the said incident, the FIR came to be lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, drew the panchnama of the scene of offence, arrest panchnama and other panchnama and collected the articles from the scene of offence and sent to the FSL and they were arrested. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses and collected necessary evidence against the accused.

2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions at Navsari wherein it has been registered as aforesaid Sessions Case.

2.4 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 30.09.2008 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to them, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court.

2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses and also produced the following documentary evidence.

2.6 After closure of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.

4. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, lea