The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquittals carry a double presumption of innocence, requiring strong grounds for reversal.

JUDGMENT :

(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.)

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2007 passed by the Preceding Officer, 3rd Fast Track Court, Gondal, Camp at Upleta (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2006 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offence.

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 It is alleged in the complaint that Vijuben daughter of complainant was married with accused No.1 prior to thirteen months and residing in joint family. That after the marriage, Vijuben went her parental home only for 3 – 4 times and she stayed there on Satam and Aatham and she complained her parents that her marriage life was not going smoothly as accused were taunting her doubting her character and tortured her by saying that her parent had not given dowry as per their wish. It is alleged that the complainant explained her and sent back to her matrimonial home and thereafter, when the complainant was at his farm, he received a phone call from Upleta and came to know that his daughter Vijuben has committed suicide by pouring kerosene and put herself on fire. Thereafter, the complainant immediately went to Upleta in a car and in between one Razaaqbhai met him on cross road, he informed that dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital for postmortem. It is also alleged that the complainant went to the hospital and other family members went to the house of the accused and when the complainant reached at the Hospital, he has seen that the dead body of the deceased was lying in auto rickshaw in burn condition as doctor was not available. That on examination by the doctor, he found one cloth in the mouth of the dead body and thereafter the doctor has referred the dead body to the Rajkot Medical College where the postmortem was completed. Thereafter, on 05.01.2005, the complainant made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Rajkot against the accused.

2.2 On the basis of the said complaint, the Investigating O has recorded statements of the witnesses and collected necessary evidence against the accused.

2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No. 102 of 2006.

2.4 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 22.11.2006 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to them, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court.

2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the the following witnesses:-

2.6 In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence:-