The appellate court reaffirmed that acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, emphasizing the requirement of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, with significant evidence contradictions weakening the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

R. T. VACHHANI, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.05.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 302, 304-B, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat 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. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the deceased Rasilaben had taken place only three months prior to the incident with accused No. 2 Prakash alias Babo Govindbhai Chovatiya. During this short married life, all the four accused, along with juvenile accused Nitaben, taunted the deceased regarding household work, cooking and not bringing dowry, thereby subjecting her to mental cruelty. On 24.08.2001, in the farm shed owned by the accused at village Kharchiya, all the accused strangled Rasilaben with a cotton rope causing her death. To conceal the homicide, accused No. 1 Govindbhai Mavjibhai inflicted six injuries resembling snake bites on the area between the big toe and ankle of the right foot of the deceased using an iron needle and placed a handkerchief over her mouth to hide the ligature marks on the neck, falsely projecting the death as one due to snake bite.

2.2. Accordingly, FIR being Jasdan Police Station came to be registered for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jasdan, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot where it was registered as the present Sessions Case.

3. On conclusion of evidence, the Sessions Court put various incriminating circumstances to the respondents-accused under Section 313 of the Code. The respondents-accused denied all allegations and claimed to be innocent. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-accused.

4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Sessions Court.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be set aside because the medical evidence conclusively proves homicidal death by strangulation, the deceased died within three months of marriage under unnatural circumstances at her matrimonial home, and the prosecution witnesses, though partly resiling from their police statements, had consistently narrated dowry-related harassment and the attempt to pass off the murder as snake bite. He therefore prays for allowing the appeal.

6. The incident took place on 24.08.2001 in the farm shed at village Kharchiya belonging to the accused persons. The deceased was living in a joint family with all four accused. The father of the deceased reached the spot soon after being informed and noticed ligature marks on the neck covered by a handkerchief as well as artificial injuries on the foot. The only persons who had access to the deceased at the relevant time were the four accused and the juvenile accused Nitaben. The complainant and several close relatives, though declared hostile by the sessions court, had in their police statements clearly narrated repeated demands for groceries, taunts regarding household work and cooking, and threats that if demands were not