In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306, 323, 498(A), 114 - Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 3 and 7 - Appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges related to dowry harassment and abetment of suicide, citing lack of evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies. (Paras 1, 3, 12)

(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court has the power to review evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions. An acquittal should not be disturbed unless the trial court's view is unreasonable or perverse. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The accused, related to the deceased Lakshmiben, were alleged to have demanded dowry and subjected her to physical and mental torture, leading to her suicide. The complaint was filed after her death, but key witnesses turned hostile, undermining the prosecution's case. (Paras 2.1, 11)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found no infirmity in the trial court's judgment, which was based on a thorough examination of evidence and the benefit of doubt extended to the accused. (Paras 12, 13)

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of evidence supporting the charges of dowry harassment and abetment of suicide. (Paras 3, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove abetment of suicide through direct or indirect acts, and mere allegations of harassment without evidence of instigation do not suffice for conviction under Section 306 IPC. (Paras 8, 12)

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.

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 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam, District: Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2009 on 26.02.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 323, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” in the rank and file 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 was the husband, accused No.2- the brother-in- law, accused No.3- the father-in-law and accused No.4-the mother-in- law of Lakshmiben, the daughter of the complainant Rajvirsingh Shrijandelsinh Shikarwa (Rajput). The accused used to demand an amount of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle as dowry from the deceased Lakshmiben and would physically and mentally torture her and even though the deceased was pregnant, the accused No.1 gave her two kicks on the stomach and caused her injury. As Lakshmiben was fed up of the torture, on 08.06.2009, she hanged herself and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by the complainant Rajvirsingh Shrijandelsinh Shikarwa (Rajput) before the Viramgam (Town) Police Station under Sections 306, 498-A, 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act, which was registered at Viramgam (Town) Police Station I-C.R.No. 37 of 2009 on 12.06.2009.

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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 12 of 2009.

2.3] The accused was 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 at Exh. 11 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 12 to 15, 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 thirteen oral evidences and eighteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.50, 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 apprecia