IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution failed to establish the elements of abetment and cruelty, leading to the upholding of the trial Court's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Panchmahal, Godhra (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 154 of 2007, whereby, the learned the trial Court has acquitted the original accused-respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Samratben wife of Jitsinh Raysinh Bariya lodged an FIR at Rajgadh Police Station being C.R. No. I-66 of 2007 against present respondents-original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of IPC wherein, the informant has stated that her daughter namely Neetaben (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) got married with the accused No. 1 before about two years and due to the said wedlock deceased delivered a male child aged about 11 months.

2.1 The deceased was residing with her in-laws in joint family. Initially, her marriage life went smoothly. Accused no. 1-husband of the deceased was studying at village Simaliya in college, wherein he got an extra material affairs with one girl of Sagtala and due to that the accused No. 1 was giving mental and physical torture to the deceased and for that accused No. 2 and accused no. 3 were instigated accused No. 1 and they were also giving mental and physical torture to the deceased. Earlier, on account of the said reason, the deceased came to the parental home and after persuasion of the family members, again she went to her matrimonial house and on that count, on the day prior to the date of incident, at late night hours she died by taking some poisonous substance because of the cruelty meted out by all the accused persons. With all that allegations, the first information report was filed by the informant. The same was registered as C.R. No. I-66 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the I.P.C.

2.2 At this juncture, it is relevant to note that before registering of said FIR, the accused No. 2 being a father-in-law of the deceased has already informed the concerned police that her daughter-in-law was died because of snakebite and for that reason the accidental death entry was already recorded as entry No. 15 of 2007 on very day. He has stated that at midnight of 12.00 O’clock while they were sleeping in their house, at that time, the deceased while attending nature’s call, suffered from snakebite and the injury was also found on the leg and hand and some bleeding was also found, so that entry was already recorded by the jurisdictional police. At the same time, the impugned FIR was given by the mother of the deceased also recorded. Thereafter, initial investigation was carried by PSI Rajgadh, who has recorded the statement, prepared the inquest panchnama in presence of the Executive Magistrate and the dead-body was forwarded to Civil Hospital for the purpose of performing the postmortem. Since the death was occurred within a period of 2 years of marriage and therefore, he has informed Dy. S.P. Halol and thereafter FIR was recorded in presence of the Dy. S.P. Halol and then further investigation was carried out by the Dy. S.P. Halol by preparing the panchnama of the place of the incident and other necessary statements of concerned witnesses were recorded. Then the accused persons were arrested and sent to the judicial custody.

2.3 On receipt of the relevant material and after going through the details and since sufficient material was found against the accused persons, chargesheet was led in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Halol. The same was registered as Criminal Case No. 2104 of 2007. Since the case was exclusively triable by sess