The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of proving abetment of suicide beyond reasonable doubt.

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 the learned Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Ahmedabad , (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 474 of 2006 on 06.07.2009, 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) as well as Sections 3 and 7 of the The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Dowry Act, for short).

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] Accused No. 1 Mehulkumar Navinchandra Patel was married to Pratikshaben Pravichandra Patel on 22-04-2002 as per the customs of their caste and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, the accused No. 4 and 5 are the sisters- in-law, and the accused No. 6 is the brother-in-law and the husband of the accused No. 4, of deceased Pratikshaben. The accused kept deceased Pratikshaben happily for one month after the marriage and thereafter started physically and mentally torturing her that she did not get any dowry from her parental home and the torture was to such an extent, that it could not be borne by deceased Pratikshaben and on 28-05-2003 at around 02:30 hours, she consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by Pravichandra Tribhuvandas Kachiya Patel, the father of deceased Pratikshaben before the Vatva Police Station under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Act, which was registered at Vatva Police Station at I-C.R.No. 322 of 2003.

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 charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 474 of 2006.

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 at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 3 to 8, 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 eight oral evidences and twelve documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.35, 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 learn