JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.04.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.69 of 2007, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 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 daughter of the complainant viz., Shyamshree alias Bhuriben got married with Vinodbhai Hiralal Prajapati - accused No.2 three years prior to the alleged incident; that her marriage life was smooth for one year; but thereafter, the accused i.e. father-in-law, mother-in-law used to quarrel with the deceased and also instigated accused No.2 (husband), due to which, he used to beat her; that whenever the deceased used to visit the house of the complainant – Ramlakhan Patiram Prajapati, she complained of ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons, the parents of the deceased went to the house of the accused and scolded them; but the accused continued giving physical and mental torture to her as she was not able to conceive a child; that on 11.05.2007, when the complainant was at his work, he received a phone call and he was informed that his daughter - Bhuriben received burn injuries and instructed him to come immediately; therefore, the complainant and his wife reached the matrimonial home of their daughter, where they were informed that she was taken to the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad; therefore, they reached the Civil Hospital, and upon making inquiry, the deceased - their daughter - Bhuriben informed them that the in-laws were giving mental and physical torture and also taunting her, and therefore, she sprinkled kerosene on her body and set ablaze. Accordingly, the complaint was filed.

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.69 of 2007. 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 9 witnesses and also produced 10 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment.

:ORAL EVIDENCE:

: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :

5. Afte