The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction, reinforcing the presumption of innocence for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Vadaodara (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2006 below Exh. 74 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 etc. of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") read with the provision under Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 The daughter of the complainant namely Shakuntlaben @ Nishaben married with accused No.1 in 2003 and after her marriage Shakuntlaben (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") was residing in her matrimonial home. During the said wedlock, she delivered a male child namely Dhruv. After her marriage, she frequently visited her parental home and intimated about ill-treatment / harassment caused by the accused persons to her on account of the dowry and other household work.

2.2 It is specific case of the prosecution that the accused persons were demanded Onida TV and also Rs.40,000/- since, accused No.1 wanted to go abroad for earning livelihood for his family. On account of that, the accused persons were giving mental and physical torture to the deceased. On 19.11.2005, the deceased had written a letter to the complainant and informed about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased and on 20.11.2005, she left her matrimonial house and came to the parental home. After persuasion of the family members and the elders, she returned to her matrimonial home.

2.3 Thereafter, on 27.03.2006, the complainant had received a phone call from accused No.1 that the deceased had fallen down in the water tank situated outside the home and because of that the deceased sustained some injuries and they had taken the deceased to the near by hospital.

2.4 On receipt of the said information, the complainant along with his wife and other relatives reached to Sangam Hospital at Vadodara and thereafter, considering the serious condition of the deceased, she was shifted to one Premdas Jalaram Hospital on 01.04.2006 where, during the course of treatment, after about five days the deceased succumbed to her injuries.

2.5 Therefore, on 5.4.2006 at about 6.00 o'clock in evening, the complainant had lodged FIR before the concerned police station. The same is being registered as I C.R. No.79 of 2006 at City Police Station Vadodara for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A), 201 and 114 of IPC, read with the provision of Sections 3 and7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.6 After recording the FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer of the City Police Station had recorded the statement of the concerned witnesses, collected the relevant material, drawn the panchnama of the place of incident, collected the PM notes and after having found sufficient material against the accused persons, filed the charge-sheet against all the accused persons before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions, wherein it has been registered as Sessions Case No. 145 of 2006.

2.7 The charge against the accused persons came to be framed at Exh.9 by the trial Court for the aforesaid offences and explained it to them. The accused persons denied having committed any offence. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court.

2.8 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined nine prosecution witnesses which read as under:-