The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if compelling evidence warrants such action.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present appeal filed by the Appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.11.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Sessions Case No.51 of 1995, whereby the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents- accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 304(B), 498(A), 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (for short "the IPC ") and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prevention Act, 1961.

2. The prosecution case emanates from the FIR (being No.55 of 1995) registered by the deceased complainant on 08.02.1995 at City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Jamnagar (at Exh.52), wherein she has alleged that she was being harassed by the accused herein by demanding dowry. The contents of the FIR reveal that she has alleged that there was some dispute going on between the accused No.1 (the husband) with regard to the maintenance, and after the compromise was entered upon, she along with her husband stayed separately at Jamnagar and at that time, the other accused (in-laws) as well as brother-in-law used to come at their home and used to demand money time and again. She has further alleged that they also demanded an amount of Rs.16,000/- and ultimately, on that day, there was some quarrel with her husband – accused No.1, who all of sudden, after threatening her, went out after some argument and bickering. Thereafter, she poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Accordingly, the charge was framed against four accused at Exh.6. The charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304(B), 498(A), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prevention Act, 1961.

3. At the outset, the present appeal is already abated, so far as the accused Nos.2 and 4 i.e. the father-in-law and mother- in-law, are concerned and the present appeal is confined to the accused Nos.1 and 3 i.e. the husband and brother-in-law.

4. The Trial Court, after examination of ocular as well as documentary evidence, has acquitted all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304(B), 498(A), 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prevention Act, which has given rise to the present appeal.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, at the outset, has referred to the dying declaration at Exh.39 recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The PW-10 – Dheerajlal Laxmishankar Vyas, is examined at Exh.37. It is submitted that in her dying declaration, she refers that she was set ablaze by the accused pouring kerosene on her.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further referred to the deposition of PW-13 - Chhotubha Devubha Chudasama (at Exh.43), and PW-7 – Ajaysinh Devubha (at Exh.28), who are brothers of the deceased. While referring to their evidence, he has submitted that they have categorically deposed before the Trial Court that the accused were demanding Rs.16,000/- from the deceased and other articles as dowry, which caused mental harassment to the deceased and ultimately, the accused poured kerosene on her and set her ablaze as the dowry demand was not met by the parents of the deceased.

7. Learned APP has further referred to the history referred by the doctor, who had treated the deceased at Exh.41. He has referred to the deposition of Dr.Ali Mohmad Osman Noida examined at Exh.42 and has submitted that the history was recorded by him.

8. Learned Additional Public Prose