IMPORTANT POINT
For a conviction under Sections 498-A and 306 RPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused's conduct constituted cruelty of such a nature that it compelled the victim to commit suicide, which requires specific and credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Mohan Lal, J.

1. Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2013 rendered by the court of Ld. Sessions Judge Udhampur in File No. 13/ Sessions titled State v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors., whereby, respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges for commission of offences u/ss 498-A/306 RPC in FIR No. 60/ 2009 Police Station Rehmbal (Udhampur).

2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, appellant/state has questioned it's legality, propriety and correctness on the following grounds:-

(i) that the impugned judgment is against law and the facts of the case, and the trial court has also failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in true and proper perspective and has reached to the conclusions which are contrary to the weight of evidence;

(ii) that it is settled position of law that the paramount consideration of the court should be to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented, law is no longer res-integra that in a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence where accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether accused really committed any offence or not;

(iii) that in the instant case the admissible evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not been appreciated in right perspective resulting in miscarriage of justice, the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable as the trial court's decision is based on erroneous view of law, the entire approach of Ld. Trial Court in dealing with the evidence is patently illegal as it has not only ignored the evidence but misread the same.

3. Sh. Sumit Bhatia Ld. GA while making foundation of his arguments from the edifice of memo of appeal, has vehemently sought the setting aside/quashing of impugned judgment dated 01.03.2013 by canvassing arguments, that during the course of trial appellant/prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses who led cogent and reliable evidence against respondents/accused which was sufficient to convict them, but the trial court has rendered impugned judgment against the law and facts of the case and has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in it's true and proper perspective and reached to conclusion contrary to the weight of evidence leading to the acquittal of respondents, thereby, causing huge miscarriage of justice.

4. Sh. Anil Khajuria Ld. Counsel for respondent/accused has strenuously supported the impugned judgment and has sought it's affirmation by vociferously portraying arguments, that 4 prosecution witnesses the close relatives of deceased (Smt. Beena Devi) viz.; PWs-Rakesh Kumar & Rajesh Kumar (brothers of deceased), PW-Bodh Raj (F/o deceased) & PW-Bimla Devi (M/o deceased) being the star witnesses of the prosecution were required to prove the factum of abetment of suicide committed by the deceased against the accused persons, but in their depositions before the trial court, they have made only generalized statements that accused used to ill-treat the deceased, as none of the aforesaid star witnesses have stated in their depositions regarding dates, months or year when the deceased was stated to have been beaten/ill-treated/harassed/ tortured by the accused with cruelty. It is argued, that as the factum of cruelty has not been established by the prosecution witnesses against the accused, the abetment of suicide cannot be said to have been proved against the accused persons, prayer has been made for the confirmation of the acquittal judgment.

5. I have heard Sh. Sumit Bhatia Ld. GA for appellant and Sh. Anil Khajuria Ld. Counsel for respondents, and have also perused the impugned judgment. To prove the case against respondents/accused, prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses.

6. Before coming to the conclusion, whether prosecution has successfully substantiated charges against respondents beyond hilt, I find it pertinent to give a brief resume of the evidence tendered by the prosec