IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC sections related to abetment of suicide.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

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 30.04.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 105 of 2006 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offence.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Nitaben daughter of the complainant, prior to performing marriage with accused No. 1, was married with one Ashokbhai Zaverbhai Solanki resident of Ahmedabad, however, they were separated within six months and after a period of ten years, Nitaben married with accused No. 1. It is also the case of the prosecution that after the marriage, Nitaben started residing with accused and when Nitaben came to know about the illicit relation between the accused, the dispute cropped up between them and the accused was giving mental and physical torture to Nitaben. The said Nitaben complained of ill-treatment, harassment and torture by the accused to the complainant, but to save her marriage life, the complainant did not utter any word. On account of mental and physical torture, Nitaben has committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor, due to which she succumbed to the injury.

2.1 On the basis of the said incident, the FIR being C.R. No. I-265/2006 came to be lodged with Pradhyumannagar Police Station for the aforesaid offences. On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has drawn the panchnama of the scene of offence, drawn the inquest panchnama, collected necessary evidence against the accused, recorded the dying declaration and sent the dead body for postmortem and, thereafter recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused.

2.2 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 wherein it has been registered as aforesaid Sessions Case.

2.3 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 19.07.2007 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to him, 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.

2.4 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses and also produced oral as well as documentary evidence.

2.5 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, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Harshad Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused at length.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE:

5. Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat, while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective. She has submit