JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14/08/2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.146 of 1996 whereby the respondent accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against her under Sections 498(A) 306, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Though notice of admission had been duly served on the respondent accused, the respondent accused did not appear either personally or through any advocate. 3. Brief facts of the case are stated as under: 3.1 The complainant Amrutben Koli, a resident of village Dhrol with her family members, was maintaining herself and family members by doing labour work. She had seven daughters including deceased, who was married to Devji Natha Koli of Taluka Bhanvad three months prior to the incident. The deceased stayed in the matrimonial house for one and half months and thereafter her father-in-law brought her to her parental house, where she stayed for 20 days. During this period she told her mother about the ill-treatment being meted out to her at the hands of the accused Shantaben, mother-in-law of deceased by way of beating her, not giving sufficient food and also telling that the accused did not want to keep the deceased. Thereafter again the father-in-law of the deceased took her to her matrimonial house. However, she was brought back to her parental house. At that time, the sister of mother of the deceased was also present there. On asking the deceased as to why she was again brought back to the house of the complainant, the deceased replied that the accused, the step-mother-in-law was taunting her by saying that she is a lady of bad-luck and having no brothers. The deceased further told the complainant that she could not hear these type of words and therefore, she did not want to go back to her matrimonial house. On 27.6.96 the accused Shantaben and the maternal uncle and aunt of the deceased came to the parental house of the deceased at village Dhrol and asked to send back the deceased to her matrimonial house. On 27.6.96 the accused Shantaben and the maternal uncle and aunt of the deceased came to the parental house of the deceased at village Dhrol and asked to send back the deceased to her matrimonial house. However, when deceased refused to go back to her matrimonial house as she was fed-up from the harassment being meted out to her at the hands of the accused, the accused got excited and quarrelled with the deceased by saying that she would see the deceased after coming back to her matrimonial house and she went away. On 29.6.1996 at about 9:00 hrs. in the morning when the complainant returned from Danki after fetching the water, the deceased sprinkled kerosene and set herself on fire. On asking by the complainant as to why she did so, the deceased replied that she did not want to go back to her matrimonial house and the complainant compelled her to go back to her matrimonial house. The deceased further replied that as she wanted to get rid of harassment being meted out to her by her mother-in-law, she has taken such step. Thereafter the deceased was taken to Irvin Hospital for treatment where the doctor declared her dead. On these facts, the complaint was filed against the respondent-accused. 3.2 At the end of investigation and on the basis of material collected against the accused, since prima facie case was made out against the accused, charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondent. Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Jamnagar for trial. 3.3 However, the learned Trial Judge, on conclusion of trial, acquitted the accused respondent of the charges levelled against her, which is giving rise to this appeal. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. K. L. Pandya for the appellant State of Gujarat. He submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record. He submitted that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the case. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of complainant Amrutben Koli, who was examined at Exh.17 wherein she has stated that her daughter committed suicide on account of ill treatment at the hands of the accused, mother-in-law. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of complainant Amrutben Koli, who was examined at Exh.17 wherein she has stated that her daughter committed suicide on account of ill treatment at the hands of the accused, mother-in-law. The complainant has stated in her evidence that her daughter has told her about the taunting by her mother-in-law by saying that the deceased is a lady of bad luck and has no brother. In her evidence, it is also stated that the deceased was not given sufficient food and when the accused came to take the deceased to her matrimonial house, the accused threatened the deceased that she would see her when she comes back to her matrimonial house. He further submitted that learned Judge ought to have considered and appreciated the oral dying declarations made before the doctor, who has given her primary treatment, the doctor, who had treated her as indoor patient, Investigating Officer and the dying declaration made before the Executive Magistrate as from the dying declarations, it is clear that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire on account of physical and mental harassment at the hands of the accused. He further submitted that learned Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of Shri Maheshbhai Hiralal Raval who was examined at Exh.29 on behalf of Investigating Officer as Investigating Officer died during the pendency of the trial. He further submitted that learned Judge ought to have believed the evidence of Dolsukhray Amarsinh Hindocha, Executive Magistrate examined at Exh.23 and Dr.Mehul Porecha examined at Exh.48. 4.1 Leaned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that if the deposition of the complainant is perused minutely, it is crystal clear that ill treatment was given by the respondent accused which led the victim to commit suicide and this important aspect has been ignored by the learned trial Court. 4.2 In support of his submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision in Indrasinh M. Raol v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999(2) GLH 596 . 4.2 In support of his submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision in Indrasinh M. Raol v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1999(2) GLH 596 . Head Notes A, F and I relevant for the purpose, are extracted hereunder: "(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860-S.498-A-Cruelty-A solitary incident cannot be interpreted as sufficient evidence of cruelty or harassment to attract S.498AIn a single incident incessant, persistent and sufficiently grave cruelty as is likely to drive the woman to a point of desperation leaving her with no option except to think about suicide would be absent-Such a single incident will not incite a woman to commit suicide under the belief that life is now not worth living-Even if in some cases single incident incites a woman to commit suicide it is not a cruelty or harassment which is unabated continuous or recurring and unbearable as envisaged by S.498ASuch one or two incidents may attract another penal provisions of I.P.Code but will not attract S.468A. (B) ..... (C) ..... (D) ..... (E) ..... (F) Indian Penal Code, 1860-S.498-A-Section is introduced to firmly curb the cruelty or harassment to the women and to provide adequate protection to them and to combat the menace of dowry death Object of the provision is to track down and crack down the husband or his relatives who are subjecting the woman to cruelty or harassment-When credible evidence is found, then the Court has to mercilessly frown on and without being compassionate throw the book at the wrong doer (accused). (G) .... (H) .... (I) Indian Penal Code, 1860-S.498-A-Harassment-Not defined in S.498ATo subject some one to unbearable, continuous or repeated or persistent unprovoked vexatious attacks, questions, demands or persecution or brutality or tyranny, or harm of pain, or affliction or other unpleasantness or grave annoyance or trouble amounts to harassment as per dictionary meaning S.498-A will not came into play in every case of harassment and/or cruelty Reasonable nexus between cruelty and suicide must be established-Prosecution has to establish that harassment or cruelty was with a view to force the wife to end her life or fulfil illegal demands and it was not matrimonial cruelty, namely,usual wear and tear of matrimonial life-Arithmatical accuracy is not expected from the prosecution but evidence should be credible, leaving no room to any reasonable doubt." 5. It is required to be noted that the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court have been very clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court In para 16 as under: "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with." 6. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of M.P., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. 7. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court together with oral as well as documentary evidence and also considered submissions made by learned advocate, in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions. I have also gone through the record and proceedings related to Sessions Case No.146 of 1996 decided on 14/08/2003 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar acquitting the respondent - accused herein. 8. I have also gone through the record and proceedings related to Sessions Case No.146 of 1996 decided on 14/08/2003 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar acquitting the respondent - accused herein. 8. It is not in dispute that the marriage span of deceased with Devji Natha Koli was of three months and it was alleged by the complainant namely, Amrutben Koli, who is mother of the deceased, that because of physical and mental harassment at the hands of respondent - accused, who is mother-in-law, the deceased had committed suicide by pouring kerosene and setting herself on fire. It is also not in dispute that when the above incident had occurred on 29/06/1996, the deceased was at the house of the complainant i.e. at her parental home. It has also come on record that within three months of marriage span, deceased has resided at her matrimonial home for one and half months and for rest of the one and half months, she has resided at her parental home. Before the trial court, over and above the rest of the witnesses, the prosecution has also examined Dolsukhray Amarsinh Hindocha at Exh.23, the Executive Magistrate, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at about 1:10 p.m. on 29/06/1996. The said dying declaration is on the record at Exh.25. Referring to the said dying declaration at Exh.25, it appears that according to the deceased, her mother-in-law i.e. respondent accused had come to the complainant's house for taking her to her matrimonial home and as she does not want to go to her matrimonial home, there were exchange of words between them and accordingly she has committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself. 9. In light of the evidence which is forthcoming on record, it appears that complainant as well as near relatives of the deceased had not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, no statement of independent witnesses has been recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and accordingly there is no evidence of independent witnesses forthcoming on record. Considering the above facts, the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that respondent accused had really taunted the deceased by saying that the deceased is a lady of bad luck and also failed to prove that the respondent accused was not giving sufficient food to the deceased. 10. Considering the above facts, the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that respondent accused had really taunted the deceased by saying that the deceased is a lady of bad luck and also failed to prove that the respondent accused was not giving sufficient food to the deceased. 10. Under the circumstances, on giving thoughtful consideration to the impugned judgment and order, there appears no illegality or perversity or arbitrariness in the conclusions arrived at and findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. 11. It appears that the learned trial Court, on an elaborate discussion of the entire oral and documentary evidence in true perspective, has acquitted the accused, as aforesaid. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against her. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence to take a view contrary to the view taken by the learned trial Court or that the approach of the learned trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the learned trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record. 13. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned judgment and order dated 14/08/2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.146 of 1996 and hence as I do not find any infirmity in the said judgment, I do not want to interfere with the same. 14. Hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 14/08/2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No.146 of 1996 is confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to sent back the record and proceedings, if called for, to the trial court forthwith after following due procedure. Appeal dismissed.