JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2012 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences under sections 306 and 498-A RPC.

2. The judgment has been impugned on the ground that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the evidence and has acquitted the respondent erroneously.

3. Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned Dy.AG appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and brother, sister and sister in law of the deceased have clearly proved the prosecution case.

4. Percontra, Ms. Radha Sharma, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently argued that the learned trial court has rightly passed the judgment as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case and further all the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 03.09.2002, Sandiya W/o Rajesh Kumar, respondent herein R/o Talli Morh, Jammu was admitted in unconscious condition in Government Medical College, Jammu as she had consumed some poisonous substance. She died in the hospital and on receipt of the information by the Police, inquest proceedings were initiated and the statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 175 Cr.P.C. After completion of the inquest proceedings, FIR bearing No. 118/2002 dated 20.09.2002 was registered against the respondent and his mother at Police Station Bakshi Nagar. After the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet for commission of offences under sections 306 and 498-A RPC was laid against the respondent and his mother on 16.11.2002, which was assigned to learned Municipal Magistrate Jammu. The charge-sheet was committed to learned Sessions Court Jammu and finally the charge-sheet was transferred to the learned trial court on 22.11.2002. The allegation against the respondent is that his marriage was solemnized in the year, 1994 with Sandiya (deceased) and they were blessed with one daughter, who at the time of occurrence was 6-7 years of age. After three-four months of the marriage, the mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Kunti Devi started harassing and taunting her that gold chain was not given at the time of marriage. Because of her harassment and beating at the hands of both the respondent and his mother, she many times came to her paternal home, but after counselling, she was sent back. On 03.09.2002, the brother of the deceased came back from his home, he came to know that both the accused and his mother had mercilessly beaten his sister. He immediately went there and his wife had already arrived there. He found that his sister was lying in an unconscious condition. He also came to know that his sister had consumed some poisonous substance and was vomiting. The vomit lying on the floor was washed by her mother-in-law Kunti Devi. He took his sister to the hospital, where she died.

7. The charge against the respondent was framed for commission of offences under sections 306 and 498-A RPC by the vide order dated 20.12.2002. The prosecution was directed to lead evidence and out of 17 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. One witness was examined by the respondent in defence.

8. As this Court is dealing with an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, so this Court is required to consider as to whether the opinion formed by the trial court while acquitting the respondent on the basis of evidence brought on record by the parties is possible and if it is so, then no interference is warranted notwithstanding the fact that on the basis of same set of evidence, the other opinion is also possible. In order to find out as to whether t