In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if there is clear evidence of illegality or perverse reasoning in the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

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 01.10.2007 in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, 7^th Fast Track Judge, Gondal camp at Dhoraji (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), 323, 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. The accused No.1 was married to Rekhaben and was her husband, The accused Nos.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of Rekhaben and all the accused used to mentally and physically harass Rekhaben to such an extent that on 28.05.2002, at about 5:30am, Rekhaben took her minor daughter Deval, aged about eight months, and sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze and both of them expired during treatment. The complaint was filed by Rekhaben herself and as she expired during treatment, the complaint was registered 1-C.R. No. 43 of 2002 at Gondal Taluka Police Station for the under sections 498(A), 306, 323 and 114 of the IPC on 28.05.2002.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions therefore, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.48 of 2004.

2.3. 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. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.6 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.7 to 9 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 7 witnesses and has produced 5 documentary evidence in support of the case.

2.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were 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), 323, 306, and 114 of the IPC.

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 learned Trial Court has committed grave error on record of the case as the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in its true and proper perspective. That the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. The learned Trial Court has erred in not considering the ratio laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case and the impugned judgment and order is perverse and suffering from legal and factual error apparent on the record. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has fai