The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless they are unreasonable or perverse, particularly in acquittal appeals.

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 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 129 of 2006 on 08.08.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

1.1 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 brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1] The accused No. 1 was married to Nathiben @ Jiguben Punjabhai Suva, the daughter of complainant Kariben Punjabhai Suva and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben Punjabhai Suva. The accused No. 3 would often tell the deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben that she was the daughter of beggars and her parents had not given her anything and would mentally and physically harass her. The accused No. 3 had once thrown hot vegetables on the leg of her daughter Nathiben @ Jiguben and all the accused would mentally and physically harass deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben and the harassment was to such an extent that on 29-09-2006 at around 20:15 hours, Nathiben @ Jiguben sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by Kariben wife of Punjabhai Dadubhai Suva, the mother of deceased Nathiben @ Jiguben before the Dy.S.P, Jamnagar City on 39-2006 which was registered at Jamnagar “A” Division Police Station I-C.R.No.247 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the IPC .

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 129 of 2006.

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.7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 to 10, 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 eleven oral evidences and twelve documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.50, 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 them.

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