To establish abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306, clear evidence of instigation or incitement is required, which was not proven in this case.

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 21.09.2007 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhangadhra (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. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased Sarojben Mansukhbhai, who was married to the younger brother of the accused No.1 about 7 years prior to the incident that had occurred on 07.06.2004. The accused and Mansukhbhai Premjibhai, the husband of the deceased, had purchased land and constructed a house in Nilkanth Park at village Halvad and were residing in that house and both the accused wanted to snatch away the house from the deceased Sarojben. About 4-5 months prior to the incident, both the accused were physically and mentally harassing the deceased. That the deceased was fed up with the harassment and they went to live separate from the accused on the top portion of the house with her children, which was not liked by the accused and they spoke bitter words to the deceased. On 07.06.2004, at 9:45 hours, the deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and committed suicide and the complaint was filed by the complainant Chaturbhai Dungarsinh Dalwadi, the father of the deceased, on 20.12.2004, at 19:00 hours, with Halvad Police Station which was registered at I-C.R.No.94 of2004 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the IPC.

2.2. 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, after completion of the 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.23 of 2005.

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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 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. The prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and has produced 9 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.47, 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.

3. 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 and evidence on record and 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 err