JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.02.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tapi at Vyara, in Sessions Case No.11 of 2013, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 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 Sessions Court, in a nutshell, is that on 20.09.2001 at about 14:00 hours, the respondents have physically beaten the deceased – Ranjnaben; and that as it was unbearable, the deceased – Ranjnaben had poured kerosene at about 15:00 hours on the same day by herself in a bathroom and set herself ablaze; and that as the deceased received burn injuries on her whole body, she succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, a complaint is lodged by the complainant alleging that during the marriage span of 15 years of the deceased, from last ten years, the in-laws i.e. the husband, the elder brother of the husband (‘Jeth’), the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law (‘Jethani’) had been taunting the deceased regarding dowry, mentally and physically abused her by finding faults of the deceased and therefore, the deceased had taken this step.

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.11 of 2013. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4.1 In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :

4.2 The prosecution has produced 16 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under :

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 conclusio