In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not disturb an acquittal if plausible evidence supports the trial court's findings. Evidence of direct causation between the accused's actions and the suicide is essential.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

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 Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Morbi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2007 on 07.09.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter to as the IPC).

1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 was the mother-in-law of deceased Gitaben the wife of Shambhubhai Merubhai Indariya and Gitaben was married to Shambhubhai about six years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they had a daughter, Vandana aged two years and the son Sumit, aged one year. As per the complaint filed by the complainant Shamjibhai Shardulbhai Thakor on 14-05-2007, the accused used to mentally and physically harass his daughter Gita and on 14-05-2007 Shambhubhai, the son-in-law of the complainant, telephoned him and told him to come immediately to the government hospital at Morbi as his daughter Gita was injured. He went to Morbi on the next morning and found that his daughter Gita and her son Sumit aged one year had fallen from Padapul (bridge) at Morbi and had expired. The complainant Shamjibhai Shardulbhai Thakor filed the complaint before the Morbi City Police Station under Sections 498-A, 306 and 594 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 which was registered at Morbi City Police Station 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morbi 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 the case was registered Sessios Case No. 41 of 2007.

2.3 The accused was 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.1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh. 2, 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 has filed the following oral evidence as well as documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES

2.5 That after the entire evidence of the pros