The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC Sections 306 and 498-A; clear evidence of instigation is necessary.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 30.01.2006 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 (Old Sessions Case No.36 of 2014) passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, District Vadodara at Savli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. That deceased Salraben was wife of the accused No.1 Vitthalbhai Punjabhai Vankar and the accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law namely Leelaben Punjabhai Vankar and father-in-law namely Punjabhai Somabhai Vankar of deceased Sarlabenben. The accused had physically and mentally tortured the deceased Sarlabenben by demanding dowry and a quarrel regarding dowry had taken place between them. The deceased Sarlabenben was so tired with the quarrel which led her to commit suicide by hanging herself on 06.11.2013. The brother of the deceased Rameshchandra Dahyabhai had lodged a complaint against the accused with Desar Police Station being I-C.R.No.46 of 2013.

2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.9 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.10, 11 and 12 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and have produced 24 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at 57, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and produced 24 documentary evidences on record in support the case, but the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the same in proper perspective. That the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the legal provisions and has committed a grave error, which has resulted into serious miscarriage of justice. Even though, the witnesses have turned hostile, the learned Trial Court ought to have exercised the powers vested under the provisions of law to find out the truth to do proper justice and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Though the act of the deceased has taken place at the residence of the accused, which has led to the death of the deceased, the accused have not explained under what circumstances and what reasons, the deceased had committed such an act. Even though, the witnesses, who have been examined, are reliable, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in recording the evidences, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Hardik Raval for the respondents - acc