The appellate court confirmed the acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and reinforcing the presumption of innocence for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

(S. V. PINTO, J.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State underSection 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2011 on 20.01.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) , 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ).

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-

2.1] The accused No. 1 is the husband and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Manjuben respectively. The accused No. 1 had illicit relations with some other woman and all the three accused used to mentally and physically harass the deceased and the harassment and torture was to such an extent that on 26th December 2010, Manjuben sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze at the house of the accused in Indiranagar. She was immediately rushed to the hospital for treatment and while she was at the hospital under treatment, she filed a complaint, which was recorded by the ACP West Zone, Rajkot. She expired during treatment on 19th December 2010, and the complaint was filed under Sections 498A , 306 and 114 of the IPC , which was registered at Mahila Police Station, II-C.R.No. 261 of 2010.

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 45 of 2011.

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 and a charge at Exh. 13 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 14 and 16 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4] The prosecution produced sixteen oral evidences and fourteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.57, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution h