The prosecution must establish clear evidence of instigation for abetment of suicide under IPC Section 306; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction.

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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2006 on 03.03.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 3 06 , 498-A and 114 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Sections 3 and 7 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "Dowry Act" for short).

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 That the marriage of the deceased Hetalba had taken place with the accused No. 1 around twelve months prior to the incident and the accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Hetalba. The accused would torture and harass deceased- Hetalba to bring jewelry and money from her parental house and on 18/04/2006, the deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and committed suicide. Her father - Kirtising Mohabatsing Solanki filed a complaint on the same day under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the PREVENTION OF DOWRY ACT , which was registered at C.R.No. 22 of 2006 at Santalpur Police Station.

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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Radhanpur and as the offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Patan as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 61 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 and a charge at Exh. 17 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 18 to 20 respectively, 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 8 oral evidences and 13 documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 46, 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 but examined the following witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.5 After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and