The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubts.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 28.02.1998 passed by the learned Special Judge (Women atrocities & Dowry Cases), Bhilwara (for short, 'learned trial court') in Special Sessions Case No.135/1997, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

2. No one appears on behalf of the accused-respondents.

3. The genesis of the dispute is traceable to a complaint submitted by one Mangilal (complainant - father of deceased victim Ganga) on 03.06.1993 before the Reserve Centre (aarakshi Kendra), Bigod, to the effect that her daughter Ganga (deceased-victim), who was married to accused-respondent No.1 Bhagirath ten years prior to lodging of the complaint, was subjected to continuous harassment and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws; as per the complaint, she was killed by her husband and in-laws.

3.1 Upon the aforementioned complaint, a case No.87/93 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and accordingly, the investigation commenced. after investigation, a charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 306 & 201 IPC against accused-Bhagirath, Devilal & Smt. Dakhi and for the offence under Section 201 IPC against accused-Heera, Udailal, Ramchandra, Bainjalal & Mohan aheer, was filed, before the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandalgarh, from where, the case upon committal, was transferred to the learned trial court for the necessary adjudication; the accused denied the charges and claimed trial, and accordingly, the trial commenced.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that from the evidence placed on record before the learned trial court, a clear case for the alleged offences was made out against the accused-respondents; the evidence further makes it clear that prior to extinguishing of her life-spark by the deceased-victim, her husband and in-laws subjected her to immense harassment, beatings and cruelty; not only this, the accused-respondents did not wait for arrival of the parents and other relatives of the deceased-victim, at her matrimonial place, before performing his last rites, which also shows a cruel attitude of the accused-respondents.

4.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that to make out a case for the alleged offences against the accused-respondents, the instigation/abetment, immediately prior to the suicide in question, was not required to be proved, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

4.2 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the contents of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased-victim makes it clear that while the harassment, beating and cruelty against the deceased-victim, at the hands of the accused-respondents continued, at one point of time, she went to her parents house; however, upon being assured by her husband and in-laws, who are accused-respondents herein, that no such act would be repeated in future, she was sent back to her matrimonial home; but as the record would reveal, thereafter again she was subjected to even more cruelty, beatings and harassment, as a result whereof, coupled with the immense instigation and abetment on the part of the accused-respondents, she herself put her life to an end by committing the suicide.

4.3 as per learned Public Prosecutor, the key prosecution witnesses, particularly, PW-1 Mangilal (complainant), PW-2 Onkar and PW-7 Smt. Dhapu, makes a clear testimony about the cruel behaviour of the husband and in-laws of the deceased-victim; they also deposed that she was even given beatings by the accused-respondents in connection with a demand of Rs.10,000/-to purchase a house by the accused-resopndents, she was told by her husband (accused Bhagirath) that he will bring in another lady as his wife. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submits that such testimonies of the key prosecution witnesses was sufficient for hold