In acquittal appeals, unless strong reasons exist, courts maintain respect for the trial court's judgment when reasonable conclusions are possible, preserving the presumption of innocence for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Pinto, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 3 78(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 95 of 2010 on 07.07.2012, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 4 98-A, 306 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood 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] Jubedaben - the daughter of Ayubsha Rahimsha Diwan was married to the accused No. 1 and the accused No. 2 was the sister-in-law (sister of the husband) of Jubedaben. The accused used to often demand money from Jubedaben and the complainant Ayubsha Rahimsha Diwan had given some amount to the accused and had also given an amount of Rs.5000/- on 16.04.2007. The accused used to threaten to give a divorce to Jubedaben and the accused No. 2 would get all her housework done by Jubedaben. The harassment was to such an extent that on 08.07.2007 at around 09.05 Hrs., Jubedaben consumed some medicine and the accused abetted the commission of her suicide and she expired during treatment. The complaint was filed by the complainant Ayubsha Rahimsha Diwan - the father of deceased Jubedaben under Sections 4 98(A), 306 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered at Anand Town Police Station being I-C.R.No. 83 of 2007.

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and had collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anand and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Anand as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 95 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 of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A charge at Exh.4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 5 and 6, 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 seventeen oral evidences and twelve documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 49, 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 an