The appellate court must respect the trial court's acquittal unless the evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion reached, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

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, Camp at Botad, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2007 on 25.04.2008, whereby, the learned Trial Court has has extended the benefit of doubt and 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 accused No. 1 is the husband of deceased Geeta and accused No. 2 is mother-in-law of deceased Geeta. The accused No. 1 and the deceased were married for more than five years and since last one year, the accused were physically and mentally harassing the deceased and on 17/12/2007, at around 08:30 pm, the deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by Maganbhai Bhavanbhai Rathod – the father of deceased Geeta at Botad Police Station under Sections 306, 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and which was registered as I-C.R.No. 242 of 2006.

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, Botad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar, as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 98 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. A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 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.

2.4 The prosecution produced nine oral evidences and fifteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, 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 him.

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 learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross- examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and th