The appellate court must respect the trial court's acquittal unless there is clear evidence of perversity or unreasonable conclusions.

ORDER :

1. The present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.01, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.285 of 2006, dated 22.06.2007.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that the father of the victim deceased Seemaben, who has registered the complaint on 13.02.2006, stated that his eldest daughter Seemaben married to the accused No.1 as per their customs and the span of marriage life was of 10 years. The accused No.2 is the father-in-law of the victim, whereas, the accused No.3 is mother-in-law and the accused No.4 is sister-in-law. They were living in a joint family. Out of the wedlock of 10 years, the deceased had one male child aged about 7 years. As per the case of the prosecution, allegation is that the accused No.1 was not earning and accused Nos. 2 and 3 were taunting the victim and the victim was subjected to mental and physical torture and the accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 used to instigate the accused No.1 to beat the victim. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the victim visited the parental home, she was making complaint about the accused and after compromise she was again taken back to the matrimonial home.

3. Since, the accused No.1 was transferred to S.T. workshop at Dwarka, so the victim -Seemaben was residing at Rajkot. At late night the accused No.2 would enter the room of Seemaben and make illegal demand, but Seemaben did not surrender to the illegal demand made by the accused No.2. Thereafter Seemaben went to Dwarka, where the accused No.1 and Seemaben were residing together. Eight months prior to the date of the incident, deceased Seemaben came at her parental home and narrated the incident that her husband was not doing job and he was sending different persons to her for illegal demand. Since the deceased refused to meet with such illegal demand she was severely beaten and compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Three months thereafter the opponent accused No.2 came at the parental home of the deceased Seemaben and upon compromise, once again Seemaben was taken to matrimonial home on Adav, Taluka- Botad and thereafter too she was subjected to torture. The accused Nos. 2 and 3 were taunting her saying that her husband was not earning anything, therefore, they should not live jointly together.

4. The fact that can be noted was that the deceased committed suicide at her parental home and the offence was registered as CR. No.-I No.58 of 2006 at Shahibaug, Police Station under Sections 498(A), 323, 114 and 306 of the IPC and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed and Sessions Case No.285 of2006 was filed for the accused to face trial.

5. Learned APP Mr.Rohan Raval for the appellant-State has submitted that the trial Court Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence in its true perspective. Learned APP has also submitted that the accused No.1 was sending different persons to the deceased for illegal demand was required to be appreciated and the her father-in-law was also entering her room and making illegal demand, which compelled the victim to commit suicide.

6. Learned APP has further submitted that the place of the suicide would not have much bearing since the accused had instigated her to commit suicide and under the circumstances she was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Learned APP has also submitted that after the compromise at Exh.9, the accused persons were torturing the deceased.

7. The offence was under Section 498A and she was also subjected to physical cruelty thus Section 323 of the IPC would get invoke, and the circumstances which led to ultimately death was the result of the continuous physical and mental cruelty.

8. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, would be relevant to be mentioned since the jud