In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.

JUDGMENT :

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 Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 212 of 2007 on 23.11.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 , 498-A and 114 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" 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 That the The accused No. 1 was the husband of deceased Parul and the accused No. 2 was the mother-in-law and on 11/04/2007, at around, 14:00 Hrs, at village Fofadiya, the accused did not give the deceased money for spending and when the deceased demanded for some money, the accused quarreled with her and physically and mentally harassed her to such an extent. That she drank some pesticides and was taken to the hospital, where, she expired during treatment. The complainant Natubhai Somabhai Vasava filed the complaint before the Dy.S.P., Vadodara (Rural), Vadodara, which was registered as First Information Report No. 18 of 2007 at Sinor Police Station on 13/04/2007.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sinor, and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 212 of 2007.

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. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 5 and 6 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 the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 36, 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 state that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public