In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must produce evidence to complete the chain of circumstances so as to hold the accused guilty for the offence. The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, of a conclusive nature and tendency, and must exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

The instant Cr. appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(3) and (1) of the Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 31.1.1996 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 45/1994 by which the learned trial court acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them under Sections 306, 498A and 406 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC while giving benefit of doubt.

2. As per the brief facts of the case, PW - 1 Brij Lal lodged oral report at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan on 17.11.1986 at about 12.30 pm, upon which FIR No. 99 (Ex.P/1) was registered. In the FIR filed by the complainant PW - 1 Brijlal it was alleged that marriage of his daughter Shimla was solemnized with accused Ram Narayan, 10-11 years ago and out of the wedlock of respondent Ram Narayan and his daughter, two daughters and one son was born and at the time of birth of son, some ornaments and cloths were given worth about Rs. 14 thousand, but in-laws of his daughter were not happy with the ornaments and cloths and they made demand of motorcycle, but it was not possible for him to give motorcycle. As per facts stated in the FIR on 12.111.1996 the marriage of the sister-in-law of his daughter Chandra Kanta was solemnized but they were not invited by the in-laws of his daughter deceased Shimla after marriage, complainant sent his son to brought Shimla for some time, but in-laws refused to send her.

3. As per allegation Shimla told his son that her mother-in-law and father-in-law take her ornaments and give to her sister-in-law Chandra Kanta whose marriage is solemnized on 12.11.1996 and they are very angry and they will kill her. In the FIR it is also stated that Shivlal and Surja Ram came to him today and asked that your daughter Shimla died in the night and upon receiving such information, the complainant along with Bhagwat Singh, Raghuveer Singh and Mool Singh went to the house of Ram Narayan where they saw that dead body of Shimal was lying on farsh and there were mark of abrasion and scratches on face and there was bleeding from the mouth of Shimla.

4. The complainant raised doubt that in-laws of her daughter Shimla might have given beating to her and gave poison substance to kill her, therefore, action may be taken against them.

5. On above information, the FIR No. 99 was registered on 17.11.1996 under Sections 498A, 406 and 306 IPC at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sri Ganganagar and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shadulshahar from where case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar from where case was further transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar for trial. The learned trial court framed charge under Section 306, 498A, 406 IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. In the trial statement of 7 prosecution witnesses were recorded including the statement of PW - 1 Brijlal, father of the deceased and PW - 6 Dr. Rajendra Gupta. Thereafter, the statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but in defence no evidence was produced by the respondents.

6. The learned trial court finally heard the arguments of both the parties and acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 31.1.1996, against the said judgment, the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that gross error of law has been committed by the learned trial court in acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them because there is ample trustworthy circumstantial evidence on record to prove the fact that ornament of the deceased Shimla were forcible taken by her in-laws before her death and due to the said reason, Shimla committed suicide, therefore, it is a case in which prosecution has proved its case beyond re