The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the upholding of the acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.07.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.268 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 302 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The prosecution case in brief is that 14 years prior to the incident the accused No.1 Rajeshkumar Nai married with deceased Anjanaben. That Rajeshkumar Nai was working in Abudhabi and in the beginning the deceased was also staying with her husband in Abudhabi. That out of the said wedlock they blessed with two children namely Kukul and Yogesh. It is the further prosecution case that three years prior to the incident, the deceased came back and started residing at Jasalpur, Tal. Kadi and the deceased was staying there with her children. During that period of three years the accused No.2 Sureshkumar Nai who is a distant relative of the deceased (cousin brother of accused No.1) started harassing the deceased as he wanted to have illicit relation with her. However, Anjanaben, the deceased did not accede to his demand and therefore, he threatened her with dire consequences. That the accused No.2 instigated the accused No.1 against the deceased and therefore, the accused No.1 wanted to get divorce from the deceased. As the accused failed in their motive, the deceased was sent to her parental house. However, with the intervention of the members of her family, she was again persuaded to stay with the accused No.1 at Jasalpur. The accused did not like the company of the deceased and therefore they burnt her by pouring Kerosene on her and committed her murder. The said offence is committed by the accused with the help of each other. Thus, the accused have committed the offences under Sections 302, 498 (a) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2.2. The FIR was lodged at Kadi Police Station. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and it was registered as Sessions Case No.268 of 2000 for trial. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent-accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and a false case has been filed against him. After examining the evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from both sides, the learned Court below recorded the finding in favour of the respondent- accused acquitting him of the charges levelled against them.

3. We have heard learned APP for the appellant – State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before the learned Sessions Court concerned.

4. Mr. J K Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant – State submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be interfered with as the evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime in question. He has further submitted