JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State. By way of this appeal the State has challenged judgment and order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 14, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 362 of 2014, whereby the Trial Court has acquitted all the accused of the offences under sections 304B, 306, 498A read with section 114 of IPC and sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that respondent No. 1 - original accused No. 1 had married to deceased on 18.11.2013. One month after the marriage accused No. 1 had demanded dowry of Rs. 1 lac from the complainant, namely, father of the deceased for establishing furniture shop. It is also the case of the prosecution that dowry demand was not satisfied. Consequently, all the accused were harassing the deceased and they were torturing her physically and mentally. Ultimately, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide by hanging, on 07.06.2014, i.e. within less than one year after the marriage. The accused were charged under sections 304B, 306 and 498A and section 114 of the IPC. 3. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation charge sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the court of sessions, it was committed to the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. 4. The Trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. To prove the case against the respondents the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: Medical evidence- (i) Exh.16 - PW-1 - Dr. Bhavin Shamlal Shah (ii) Exh.46 - PW-11 - Mahipal Tulsibhai Sheth. Complainant's evidence- (iii) Exh.19 - PW 2 - Pravinbhai Bhanajbhai Sondager Witnesses' evidence- (iv) Exh.22 - PW-3 - Rajubhai Gordhanbhai Sondager (v) Exh.23 - PW4 - Kiritbhai Bhikhabhai Chauhan Panch witnesses' evidence- (vi) Exh.25 - PW-5 - Parth Vishnubhai Patel (vii) Exh.29 - PW-6 - Ganeshbhai Unaji Rangi (Prajapati) (viii) Exh.32 - PW-7 - Shantibhai Megjibhai Sondager Police witnesses' evidence- (ix) Exh.38 - PW-8 - Pradipbhai Jamnadas Sarang (x) Exh.43 - PW-10 - Ranjitsinh Nanjibhai Khant (xi) Exh.48 - PW-12 - Baraiya Galabhai Somabhai Ex. Magistrate's evidence (xii) Exh.40 - PW-9 - Indravir Vajubhai Zala. Magistrate's evidence (xii) Exh.40 - PW-9 - Indravir Vajubhai Zala. The defence too has examined the following witnesses: Medical evidence: (i) Exh.66 - DW-1 - Dr. Amrut Satramdas Godani (ii) Exh.70 - DW-3 - Dr. Nilesh Maganbhai Patel Witnesses' evidence: (iii) Exh.69 - DW2 - Kartikbhai Mansukhbhai Vaja (iv) Exh.72 - DW 4 - Vikasbhai Dipakbhai Vaja (v) Exh.73 - DW 5 - Mehulbhai Balabhai Bambhania 6. At the end of trial and after recording further statements of the accused under section 313 of the Code and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against them by the impugned judgment and order. 7. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State has submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in releasing the respondents-accused. It was contended by Mr. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the offence against the present respondents, and though offence was proved against the accused, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through the evidence on record and submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under sections 304B, 306and 498A and section 114 of the IPC and sections 3 & 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act being contrary to law and the evidence on record, requires to be set aside and eventually, requested this Court to interfere in appeal. 8. We have examined the matter carefully. While appreciating the evidence the Trial Court has taken into consideration evidence of the parties. However, no independent witness has come on record to establish that dowry demand was made. No independent witness has been examined to prove that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured. On the contrary the defence has examined two doctors, namely, Dr. Amrut Satramdas Godani (DW-2, Exh.69) and Dr. Nilesh Maganbhai Patel (DW-3, Exh.70), by which it has come on record that the victim had come to Dr. No independent witness has been examined to prove that the deceased was physically and mentally tortured. On the contrary the defence has examined two doctors, namely, Dr. Amrut Satramdas Godani (DW-2, Exh.69) and Dr. Nilesh Maganbhai Patel (DW-3, Exh.70), by which it has come on record that the victim had come to Dr. Nilesh with the complaint of vomiting and diarrhea on 12.03.2014, as she had that problem since 14 days and that she had to go for 3 to 4 times a day. He stated that whenever the victim used to visit him she was accompanied by her husband. He further stated that on 19.05.2014, the victim had come with a new complaint of irregular periods and ulcers in the mouth. He further stated that she had told him that due to irregular periods, she had herself carried out the pregnancy test which has been proved negative. He had advised her for certain blood reports for which she had again visited him on 20.05.2014 to show the reports (Exh.71). He had diagnosed that she was anemic and was having iron deficiency. Said witness has further stated that irregular periods may cause problems for pregnancy but that specific opinion can be given by a gynecologist. He stated that his wife is a gynecologist. The fact that the victim had visited to this witness has not been rebutted by the prosecution. 9. Thus, from the evidence of the above two doctors on record the fact that the deceased was having some mental and physical problem because of which she had the feeling of disliking cannot be discarded. Then, a question would surely arise as to when did the victim go to Dhodakva to see her father. The complainant did not give any date when the victim according to him had come to Dhodakwa. What he says is that in the month of March she had come to Dhodakwa. The doctor said that she had come for her complaints on 12.03.2014 and was having the complaint of vomiting and diarrhea since last 14 days. Thereafter, also she had as follow-up visited the doctor. 10. In our view benefit of doubt granted to the respondents by the Trial Court is just and proper. We confirm the same. The appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order is confirmed. Record & Proceedings, if are lying, be sent to the court below forthwith.