Judgment Anant S. Dave, J. 1. This appeal is preferred under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code of 1973) against judgment and order dated 23.03.1990 in Sessions Case No. 107 of 1989 by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad acquitting the respondent/original accused, who was charged for offence punishable under sections 302 and 498A of the IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution one Harish Vanaji Thakore, aged 31 years filed complaint on 13.03.1989 that his sister, aged 22 years, who earlier married with Amdupura Dilipkumar before 4 years had taken divorce as it was not compatible for her to continue matrimonial life with him. Before two years, Hansaben, sister of the complainant entered into customary marriage with Limbaji Chamnaji Thakore, aged 25 years and residing in the opposite chawl and she used to stay with him. That parents of Limbaji stayed at Lokhand Bazar, Sarangpur. That Hansaben had not borne any child out of earlier marriage. That husband of her sister earns livelihood in Sarangpur by moving handcart. However, husband of her sister is having bad habit of drinking liquor and had never lent any money to her to run daily chores. In addition to above he used to harass her and often caused physical injuries and in such circumstances his sister used to apprise the complainant about such cruelty exerted by her husband and upon persuasion by him and mother, Hansaben used to go back to her husband. The incident in question took place around 10.00 - 10.30 PM on 12.03.1989 when Hansaben, sister of the complainant came to his place and complained of ill treatment meted out by her husband, who had beaten her since Hansaben had refused to lend money to her husband for liquor and gambling. However, the complainant and her mother again convinced Hansaben and told her to hand over Rs. 110/- from her savings and thereafter husband of Hansaben went out of his home and the complainant and his mother came back to their residence. However, in view of commotion around 01.45 to 02.00 AM of 13.03.1989, viz. the intervening night of 12th and 13th March 1989, the complainant woke up and saw disturbance in the home of Hansaben and immediately went there and found his sister dead having received burn injuries. Husband of Hansaben was present and had received burn injuries. However, in view of commotion around 01.45 to 02.00 AM of 13.03.1989, viz. the intervening night of 12th and 13th March 1989, the complainant woke up and saw disturbance in the home of Hansaben and immediately went there and found his sister dead having received burn injuries. Husband of Hansaben was present and had received burn injuries. Limbaji Chamnaji Thakore, husband of Hansaben was found drinking liquor and at that time Pratapbhai Gajuji, Sanklaji Kachraji and Kachraji Chaganji Thakore, who were present there informed the complainant that Hansaben was burnt alive by Limbaji. Thus, brother in law of the complainant, who had beaten his sister and caused cruelty by refusing to hand over money for day to day expenses, after consuming liquor and for playing gambling again quarreled with his sister, beaten her and later on killed her by setting her ablaze. At the end of investigation carried out and filing of charge sheet the case was committed to trial court and it is numbered as Sessions Case No. 107 of 1989 and tried by the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad. Upon appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution the learned Judge found that the case against the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and ordered acquittal of the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned Trial Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that non examination of some of the eye witnesses proved fatal to the case of prosecution and that even if weak piece of evidence is surfaced on record qua section 302 of IPC for want of direct evidence at least conviction ought to have been ordered under section 306 of the IPC for which ample evidence is surfaced. That almost all the prosecution witnesses including the complainant mother, neighbours and documentary evidence including outcome of FSL examination, namely analytical report which reveal even one of the clothes of the accused had hydrocarbon and therefore conviction ought to have been ordered under section 306 of IPC. The learned APP further contended that when the accused was found inside the room sitting on cot and witnessed by neighbours, who had rushed to the scene of offence, case was made out by the prosecution that offence in question was committed by the accused persons since no one was present, except wife and husband, viz. victim deceased and the accused. victim deceased and the accused. The learned APP has taken us to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely, eye witnesses, Panch witnesses, Police witnesses and medical evidence and contended that mental and physical cruelty discerned from the evidence and it reflected bad habits of consumption liquor and gambling and demand of money from time to time by the accused, which ultimately resulted into heinous crime where young married woman ended her life in unnatural manner. It is therefore, submitted that for all purposes a case was made out by the prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused under section 306 of the IPC and accordingly conviction and sentence be awarded by this Court in the appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat against acquittal order by the learned Trial Judge. 3. Mr. A.D. Shah, learned counsel for defence-respondent-original accused has taken us to findings and reasonings of the learned Trial Judge in acquitting the accused both under sections 302 and 306 of IPC and submitted that acquittal is ordered not on surmises or conjectures but it is based on cogent and convincing reasons advanced by the learned Trial Judge, namely, for not relying the complainant, his mother and neighbours and therefore, this Court would be loath in interfering with the judgment and order of acquittal. According to the learned counsel for defence even no case was made out for cruelty, namely, mental and physical in absence of any evidence on record and even witnesses, who deposed before the trial court only narrated manner and instances of quarrel for which no complaint was made in the past nor any physical injury was caused. It is submitted that testimonies of witnesses were full of contradictions, improvements and embellishment and further in view of inconsistencies through out, such witnesses do not inspire any confidence and therefore, they are not reliable and rightly the learned Trial Judge disbelieved them which resulted into acquittal. It is therefore, submitted that considering the parameters for exercise of appellate powers by this Court against the judgment and order of acquittal this appeal deserves to be rejected. 4. We have gone through the record of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned counsel for defence and carefully perused the following evidence. “I. Medical Evidence PW-2 Exh.15 Exh.16 Exh.17 Dr. 4. We have gone through the record of the case and considered the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned counsel for defence and carefully perused the following evidence. “I. Medical Evidence PW-2 Exh.15 Exh.16 Exh.17 Dr. Ramniklal Bhagwanji Kaneria Blood sample of accused Injury certificate of accused-Limbaji Chamnaji. Page 131 Page 137 PW-9 Exh.26 Exh.27 Dr. Ravindra Balasaheb Deshmukh PM Report Page 209 Page 219 II. Witnesses related to cruelty as well as the incident PW-1 Exh.13 Exh.14 Harish Vanaji Thakore, brother of deceased Hansaben Complaint Page 111 Page 127 PW-3 Exh.18 Pratapbhai Gajuji, neighbour of the accused. Page 143 PW-4 Exh.19 Rajesh Chaturbihari Sharma, Municipal Corporation. Page 155 PW-5 Exh.20 Kachraji Chhaganji Thakore Page 159 PW-6 Exh.21 Jagalben Vanaji Thakore, mother of the deceased. Page 167 III. Panch witnesses Pw-8 Exh.24 Exh.25 Rajeshkumar Gordhandas Patel Panchnama of the scene of offence Page 185 Page 195 IV. Police witnesses PW-7 Exh.22 Exh.23 Vakshibhai Lalubhai Ninama, Head Constable Extract of Vardhi from Vardhi Book of Shaherkotda Police Station. Page 179 PW-10 Exh.29 Exh.9 Exh.10 Exh.11 Exh.12 Chunibhai Govindbhai Patel, DSP Inquest Report Panchnama – clothes of deceased. Forwarding letter to FSL. FSL report. Page 237 Page 71 Page 75 Page 81 Page 95 Upon perusal of above nature of evidence it transpires that complainant, PW-1 had not seen the incidents but was informed by three other persons upon reaching the residence of his sister- Hansaben, victim and deceased. That version of Pratapbhai Gajuji, PW-3, exh.18, who claimed to have seen Hansaben from the window of her house that she was burning and the door of the house was closed from inside and said door was forcibly broke open by applying kicks by 5 or 6 persons, but at the same time version of above witness was not believed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that he was unable to state how accused- Limbaji Chamnaji Thakore sustained injuries and further description about wooden rack used for storage of clothes which fell on accused- Limbaji Chamnaji Thakore and in turn he received injuries. However, scene of Panchnama of offence and description of a witness would reveal that rack was of iron make, not of wood. However, scene of Panchnama of offence and description of a witness would reveal that rack was of iron make, not of wood. Even mother of the victim, Jagalben - PW-6 had also deposed to the extent that quarrel between his daughter and son in law was not of such a grave nature for which any intervention was necessary and no complaint was filed. Further, non examination of two important witnesses, namely, Sanklaji Kachraji and Vihaji Dhanaji, who were present at the scene of offence since beginning of opening door and finding accused-Limbaji sitting on cot is unexplained by prosecution in juxtaposition to close relatives, who were examined attributing cruelty to accused. 5. Besides, cross-examination of Kachraji Chhaganji Thakore PW-5 Exh. 20 reveals that door of the house was not open but by giving push, chain, which is inside the door, was opened and thereafter PW-5 and PW-3 found Hansaben lying on the ground having her feet towards door and head towards cot. Immediately thereafter cloths were brought from outside and thrown on injured - Hansaben and it took about 10 minutes to extinguish fire and clothes lying on stake which was of iron make and not burnt. The important and material aspect about witnessing accused Limbaji sitting on a cot and smoking bidi has not been stated in police statement and same is also established in the evidence of Investigating Officer PW-10 Exh. 29. Likewise, inconsistencies were found in the testimonies of PW-3 Pratapji about the incident in question about receiving burn injuries by victim as well as accused and description of rack whether it was made of iron or wood. The above reasoning of learned Judge based on unreliable version of these witnesses cannot be said to be contrary to law. In continuation of appreciation of evidence of PW-4 Rajesh Sharma, a Corporator, he also did not carry prosecution version anymore as he got information about receiving burn injuries by Hansaben and so was recorded in police yadi. The above witness has also contradicted himself to the extent of statement before the police and deposing before the trial court. In continuation of appreciation of evidence of PW-4 Rajesh Sharma, a Corporator, he also did not carry prosecution version anymore as he got information about receiving burn injuries by Hansaben and so was recorded in police yadi. The above witness has also contradicted himself to the extent of statement before the police and deposing before the trial court. At the same time, the story of the prosecution was considered by learned Judge from a different angle upon explanation of the accused about his going to see a movie at Everest Cinema in company of his brother-in-law Ashok as probable one and that Ashok was not examined at all by prosecution also creates doubt about truthfulness of the whole case of the prosecution and that prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Even different versions were recorded of other witnesses and case was examined from the angle of circumstantial evidence by the learned Judge and it was found that prosecution has even failed to establish link or chain of events leading to guilt of the accused. That nature of major contradictions, vital omissions and material discrepancies found by the learned Judge in testimonies of witnesses resulted into acquittal and there is dispute about the fact of homicidal death of victim due to receiving burn injuries. 7. Collective and conjoint reading of the evidence as a whole do not persuade us to take a different view against acquittal order by the learned Trial Judge in exercise of powers under section 378 read with section 386 of the Code of 1973. 8. This Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Gujarat, the appellant, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is hereby dismissed and the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City dated 23.03.1990 in Sessions Case No. 107 of 1989 stands confirmed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court concerned. Appeal Dismissed.