JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.09.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Navsari camp at Vansda, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2010, 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 death of a deceased woman who had been living with her husband and in-laws for about seven years occurred at her matrimonial home. It is alleged that the accused persons, including her husband, used to quarrel with her, beat her, and harass her by not providing proper food, and that the husband was also habituated to consuming liquor. The deceased had informed her parental family about this harassment, but was sent back with an assurance that she would not be ill-treated in future. Despite this, the harassment allegedly continued. On 09.10.2009, while the complainant was away for work, he received information from a villager that his daughter had sustained burn injuries and had been admitted to the hospital. Subsequently, she died due to the burn injuries, allegedly after being subjected to cruelty and harassment, which led her to commit suicide. The complaint with this regard was accordingly 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.48 of 2010. 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 11 witnesses and also produced 18 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:

Oral Evidence

Documentary Evidence

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 th