JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.04.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan, in Sessions Case No.29/2008, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 323, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of 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 trial Court is that the deceased was married to accused No.1 and, during her matrimonial life, she was allegedly subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons on account of suspicion regarding her character and demands for dowry. It is alleged that, unable to bear such harassment, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze. The complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased with this regard. 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.29/2008. 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 12 witnesses and also produced 28 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which 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