JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev J.Thaker, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.08.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, Dist- Rajkot in Sessions Case No.52/2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that the complainant was residing with his family, including his son’s daughter Nitaben. On 21.10.2007, it is alleged that Nitaben was burnt inside her house and was thereafter taken to the hospital, where she succumbed to burn injuries. It is further the case of the prosecution that prior to the incident, certain accused persons had allegedly threatened Nitaben and her family members, and despite such intimidation, no effective protection or assistance was provided. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge- sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Sessions Case No.52/2008. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and also produced 14 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment are as under;

Oral evidences

Documentary Evidences

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which the charge was framed, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is r