ORDER :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant State praying that the present appeal be allowed and that the impugned judgment, dated 28.05.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) whereby the respondents were acquitted from offences under Sections 306/34 IPC, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused respondents may be punished and sentenced as per the law.

3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State are that the victim, Smt. Sita Devi W/o Mr. Roshanlal, died by hanging herself, and that a complaint was filed by one Mr. Kishanlal at the Police Station, Phalasiya on 28.01.2011 subsequent to which, the deceased victim’s father also submitted a written report alleging that his daughter was harassed, tortured and ousted from her matrimonial home by her in-laws, on demands of dowry. And that, to this extent an F.I.R. was registered against the respondents on 28.4.2011, under Sections 306/34 IPC and after investigation a charge sheet was filed against the respondents. Subsequent to which, the learned Trial Court below after hearing both parties acquitted the respondents.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submits that the learned Court below did not appreciate the evidence placed before it on record, specifically, the testimony given under oath by the P.W. 1, the father of the deceased victim wherein it was categorically stated that the deceased victim’s in–laws harassed and tortured her and subjected her to cruelty in connection with demands to dowry.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddaling Vs. The State, through Kalagi Police Station (Criminal Appeal No.1606/2009 decided on 09.08.2018) wherein the following was observed: -

“In the case in hand, the witnesses-PW-1, PW-6, PW-10 and PW22 have clearly in their statement stated that the Appellant continued his relation with another woman. The Appellant's illicit relation with another woman would have definitely created the psychological imbalance to the deceased which led her to take the extreme step of committing suicide. It cannot be said that the Appellant's act of having illicit relationship with another woman would not have affected to negate the ingredients of Sections 306 Indian Penal Code.

In our considered view, based upon the evidence and also Agreement dated 22nd June, 2002, the High Court has rightly maintained the conviction of the Appellant Under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code.

Insofar as the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant, praying for leniency in the quantum of sentence, we are unable to accept the same. Keeping in view the fact that within four months of her marriage, the deceased-Kavitha has taken the extreme step of putting an end of her life and also within three months of convening the panchayat, the deceased-Kavitha has committed suicide, showing any leniency would be a misplaced one. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, this is not a fit case for reducing the quantum of sentence of the Appellant.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.”

6. On the other hand, learned respondents for the respondents submits that the learned Court below has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances and only after a perusal of the evidence placed on the record before it, acquitted the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:-

7.1 in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 wherein the following was observed:-

“Thus, "abetment" involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doin