Sanjay Karol, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 24.8.2009, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 4/2009 (Sessions Trial No. 4/2009), titled as State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. It is the case of prosecution that accused Pawan Kumar was married to Parveen Kumari (deceased). On 10.11.2008, deceased consumed poison and died at her matrimonial house in village Chak. The matter was immediately reported to the police. On the basis of statement of Prem Lata (PW-1) so recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. (Ext. PW-1/A), F.I.R. No. 232/2008, dated 11.11.2008 (Ext. PW 10/A), was registered at Police Station Amb, Distt. Una (H.P.), under the provisions of Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused. Investigation was conducted by Dy.SP Surinder Sharma (PW-11) who after preparing inquest report (Ext.PW-7/B) sent the dead body for post-mortem which was so conducted by Dr. Nikhil (PW-7), who on the basis of report of the Sate Forensic Science Laboratory Junga (Ext.PW-7/C), issued port mortem report (Ext. PW-7/D), opining the deceased to have died on account of chemical poisoning. Investigation revealed that accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and coerced and abetted her to commit suicide. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

3. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 498-A, 302 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eleven witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused.

5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal by the State.

6. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohit Bharoll, learned Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offences.

8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36, Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under:

“(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.C. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in – ‘Sheo Swarup v. Empero