In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, with particular emphasis on direct evidence of instigation to suicide under Section 306 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 3 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2010 on 09.09.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Sections 3 ,5 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1.1 The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 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 the husband of Dakshaben, the daughter of the complainant Narbherambai Karshanbhai, and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were the uncle and aunt of deceased Dakshaben. The accused would physically and mentally harass Dakshaben and demand money from her and as Dakshaben was fed up of the mental and physical harassment, on 12-03-2010, at around 15:00 hours, while she was at Madhav Park, 150 feet ring road, she sprinkled kerosene on herself and set herself ablaze and expired. The complainant filed the complaint at Rajkot City Mahila Police Station under Section 498 (A), 306, 504 and 14 of the IPC, which came to be registered as Rajkot City Mahila Police Station, III-C.R. No.3 of 2010.

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 Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No.92 of 2010.

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. 16 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 17, 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 eight oral evidence and sixteen documentary evidence to bring home 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. 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 judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – original complainant has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to evidence on record and law and facts and the learned trial C