JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant - original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2004. The said case was registered against the present respondent-original accused for the offences punishable under Sections-498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution case, one Ramuben Jivanbhai Ishwarbhai Kodiya, resident of Vansada, Mahuvas, disclosed before the Police Sub-Inspector, Vansada that she was living with her family at the said place. Her daughter Radha, who was 26 years old and studied at Mahuvas Primary School upto 7th standard. After leaving the school, before five years, she was working as a labourer in the truck of Shantilal Shah. One Bharatbhai respondent-accused herein was driver of the said truck. Due to development of love affairs between Radha and respondent-accused, the respondent-accused stayed with Radha as husband stating that he was bachelor. Both Radha and respondent-accused were in relation as husband and wife and out of the said relation, they blessed with two sons viz. Divyesh aged about 3 years and Bhavesh aged about 11 years. Before one year, one lady came there and quarrelled with Radha. At that time, it was came in the knowledge of Radha that the respondent accused was married person, but respondent-accused denied the said fact to Radha and complainant. After this incident, the respondent-accused used to come there once in two to three months and quarrelled with Radha and was giving mental and physical harassment to her. On 29.05.2004, the respondent-accused came there and stayed at night and at round about 11:30 hours, quarrel took place between Radha and the respondent-accused and at round about 3:00 hours, the respondent-accused beaten Radha and after some time, Radha started shouting and poured kerosene and set ablaze her and respondent-accused ran away. On 30.05.2004, Radha succumbed to the injuries. On being asked by the complainant to Radha, she told that the respondent accused was a married person and even though he was keeping relation with her and also giving physical and mental torture to her and due to this, she committed suicide. As a result of which, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the Vansada Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R.No.38 of 2004. As a result of which, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the Vansada Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R.No.38 of 2004. Then, investigation was carried out and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Inquest panchnama and panchnama of place offence were drawn. Dead body of the deceased sent for the postmortem and muddmal were recovered by the Investigating Officer. Then, PM note was prepared and charge-sheet was filed against the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Sections-498A and 306 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vansada, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 504 of 2004. As the said offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vansada, committed the said case to the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Navsari, which was thereafter numbered as Sessions Case No. 33 of 2004 3. On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.3 and read-over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections-498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Then, plea was recorded vide Exh.4 and respondent-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of the prosecution case, prosecution has examined four oral evidences :- Sr. No. Exh. Name of Witness 1 6 Ramuben Javlubhai 2 8 Manubhai Ratnabhai 3 9 Kailashben Dharmeshbhai 4 10 Minaben Vikrambhai 5 11 Dharmeshbhai Gurjibhai 6 15 Doctor Santoshkumar Shri Haridas 7 22 Doctor Smt. Renuprasad Upendraprasad 8 25 Naginbhai Ravjibhai Patel 9 32 Mahendrasinh Devubha Zala 10 34 Mahendrabhai Vajesing Rathod 5. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidences like complaint at Exh.7, inquest panchnama at Exh.12, panchnama of place of offence at Exh.13, panchnama of physical condition of the accused at Exh.14, PM note at Exh.24, treatment certificate of deceased at Exh.30, letter written to PSI by Medical Officer, Vansda at Exh.16, letter written by Medical Officer, Vansada at Exh.21, yadi of PSO, Vansada to Executive Engineer, Vansada at Exh.26, copy of station diary bearing No. 3 of 2005 of Vansda Police Station at Exh.27 and 31, case papers of the deceased Radha at Exh.19, yadi to remain present while drawing inquest panchnama at Exh.28, yadi to Medical Officer for PM at Exh.23. 6. 6. Then, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The respondent-accused disclosed that he had not given any mental or physical torture to deceased and there was no provocation, instigation or abetment. He further admitted that he was innocent and he has wrongly charge-sheeted by the complainant and he denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 7. Then, arguments of both the parties were heard and after perusal of the evidence and statement made by both the parties, learned trial Judge after considering the probable defence made by the respondent-accused passed the acquittal order in favour of the respondent-accused. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.10.2004 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2004, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 9. Heard Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. Suraj Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent-accused, who states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent-accused and he will file his Vakalatnama during the course of the day. 10. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State. Ms. Punani, read the charge and complaint and argued that looking to the evidence of the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased Radha, the respondent-accused stayed with Radha at her house and he was keeping relation with Radha as a husband. She further argued that one day, one lady came to complainant's house and stated that she was wife of the respondent-accused and at that time, it was came into the knowledge of the complainant that respondent accused was a married person. After this incident, quarrel took place between Radha and the respondent-accused and because of which the deceased Radha was beaten by the respondent-accused and as a result of such cruelty, the deceased committed suicide. She further argued that as per the medical evidence of the doctor, it is also proved that the deceased committed suicide. After this incident, quarrel took place between Radha and the respondent-accused and because of which the deceased Radha was beaten by the respondent-accused and as a result of such cruelty, the deceased committed suicide. She further argued that as per the medical evidence of the doctor, it is also proved that the deceased committed suicide. She contended that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through oral versions of the witnesses, who declared as hostile by the learned trial Judge, but looking to the conduct of the respondent-accused, it amply clear that the learned trial Judge committed a grave error and wrongly acquitted the respondent-accused from the alleged charge levelled against him. Lastly, she prayed to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of acquittal. 11. Mr. Suraj Shukla, learned advocate for the respondent-accused read the charge as well as evidence of the mother of the deceased and vehemently argued that the complainant disclosed contradictory facts in her deposition. He then argued that in support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined witnesses, who declared as hostile. However, they were also cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, but the prosecution could not establish its case before the learned trial Judge and therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused and observed against the respondent-accused that when the main ingredient of Sections-498A and 306 of IPC are not proved, then respondent-accused cannot be convicted. Lastly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness-complainant and also perused the charge framed against the respondent-accused. I have also considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the parties. 13. It is true that before the learned trial Judge, the complainant could not prove the actual act and conduct of the respondent-accused, who was booked by the prosecution for the offence punishable under Sections- 498A and 306 of the IPC. I have gone through the Sections-107 and 108 of the IPC and the same is compared with the evidence of the prosecution. It is crystal clear that main ingredient of abetment or abettor, instigation and provocation are not proved through witnesses and documents produced on record. I have gone through the Sections-107 and 108 of the IPC and the same is compared with the evidence of the prosecution. It is crystal clear that main ingredient of abetment or abettor, instigation and provocation are not proved through witnesses and documents produced on record. From the perusal of the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, I am of the opinion that learned trial Judge has rightly observed that prosecution failed to prove main ingredient of Sections-498A and 306 and rightly considered the defence version of the respondent-accused. In view of the above observations made by the learned Judge, I am in complete agreement that the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused. There in no substance in the appeal and the arguments made by the learned APP. Though learned APP has tried to establish her case, but the Court has not found any sufficient evidence to consider and entertain this appeal. 14. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 755 , the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed 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." 15. 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." 15. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of 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 MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 16. In view of the above, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2004, acquitting the respondent-accused is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond shall stand cancelled. The respondent-accused be released forthwith. Direct Service is permitted. Appeal dismissed.