The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence, emphasizing that an acquittal should not be overturned without compelling evidence demonstrating guilt 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 28.02.2007 in Sessions Case No.110 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6^th Fast Track Court, Modasa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’). The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. During pendecy of the present appeal, the respondent No.2 – original accused No.2 Ratabhai Lalubhai Damor has expired on 25.10.2017. Copy of the death certificate is produced and the same is taken is taken on record, and hence, the present appeal qua respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.2 stands disposed of as abated.

3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. The accused No.1 was married to deceased Laliben and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father in-law and mother in-law of deceased Laliben. The accused were physically and mentally harassing the deceased as the accused No.1 had illicit relation with Lilaben, wife of Raman Harji Patel, resident of village Sajjanpura Kampa and as the deceased was restraining the accused No.1 from maintaining the illicit relationship, all the accused were mentally and physically harassing the deceased. On 23.01.2002 at around 7:00am, the deceased got burnt and expired, and hence, the complainant Bhathibhai Jalambhai Thakarda, the brother of the deceased, filed the complaint on 24.01.2002 with Meghraj Police Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No.8 of 2002 under Section 498(A), 306, 114 of the IPC.

3.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions therefore, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No. 110 of 2006.

3.3. 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.2 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.3, 4 and 5 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and has produced 9 documentary evidence in support of the case.

3.4 After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.28, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the IPC.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record. The learned Trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond the reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in evaluating the evidence on reco