JUDGMENT : G.B SHAH, J. Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30/06/2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha @ Palanpur, in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2009, whereby, the original accused came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the IPC) and for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment (SI) for 30 days and for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, to under go RI for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for 07 days. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2011 has been filed by the original accused against conviction, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 1211 of 2011 has been filed by the State for enhancement of sentence. 2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts of the prosecution case are that marriage of deceased Afiyaben, the sister of complainant Jabirbhai Shermohammad Memon had solemnized with Farooqbhai Satarbhai Memon, the accused. It is alleged that on or about 27/12/2006, the accused had demanded a tractor and a shop from the complainant, the brother of the deceased and since, the said demand was not fulfilled, he perpetrated cruelty upon the deceased, which led the deceased to commit the suicide by setting herself ablaze by pouring kerosene. The accused, thus, committed the offence alleged against him, for which a complaint came to be lodged. 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 Sessions Court at Palanpur. 4. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under: ORAL EVIDENCE S/n. Name of Witness Exh. 1 PW-1 Dr. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under: ORAL EVIDENCE S/n. Name of Witness Exh. 1 PW-1 Dr. Rajendrapuri Manekpuri Swami 8 2 PW-2 Jabirbhai Shermohammad Memon, the complainant 11 3 PW-3 Kherunisa Shermohammad Memon 16 4 PW-4 Anishaben Jabirbhai Memon 18 5 PW-5 Shermohammad Rasulbhai Memon 19 6 PW-6 Dr. Mustakahemad Gulamrasul Shaikh 20 7 PW-7 Makruddin Abdulkaiyum Madhiya 31 8 PW-8 Abdulrasid Aiyub Marediya 33 9 PW-9 Jagdishbhai Devlabhai Katara, Dy. SP 34 10 PW-10 Dhaneshsinh Ajitsinh Chauhan, IO 36 11 PW-11 Dudabhai Danabhai, ASI 38 12 PW-12 Sarjanbhai Kadvaji Pandor 42 13 PW-13 Chiragbhai Bhagvandas Tandel 41 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S/n. Document Exh. 1 Injury Certificate 9 2 Yadi of MO to PSO 10 3 Complaint 12 4 Panchnama of physical condition of the accused 13 5 Inquest Panchnama 14 6 Post Mortem Note 21 7 Post Mortem Form 22 8 Panchnama of place of offence 32 9 Report of Dy. SP as to registering the offence 35 10 Muddamal Despatch Note 37 11 Suchi Patra 39 12 Suchi Patra 43 13 Copy of Station Diary 44 14 Copy of telephone vardhi 45 15 Wireless message 46 16 Report as to grave offence 47 17 Declaration as to accidental death 48 6. The defence has also examined following witnesses and produced and relied on some documents on record, as under: ORAL EVIDENCE S/n. Name of Witness Exh. 1 DW-1 Memon Farooq Abdul Satar 54 2 DW-2 Dr. Sanjay Ramanlal Dharani 56 3 DW-3 Dr. Anandbhai Moghjibhai Chaudhary 58 4 DW-4 Dr. Menendrasing Udayvirsing Sengal 61 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S/n. Document Exh. 1 Prescription of Dharani Hospital 57 2 Certificate of Dr. Anand M. Chaudhary of Upvan Hospital & Laparoscopic Center 59 7. At the end of the trial, Further Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code was recorded in which he denied the evidence forthcoming on the record and stated that because of business rivalry with him, false case has been filed against him. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statement and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid by impugned judgment and order. 8. Thus, after recording above-referred Further Statement and hearing the arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid by impugned judgment and order. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the State as well as the accused have preferred the present appeals for enhancement of sentence and against conviction, respectively. 9. Heard Mr. Pratik Barot, the learned advocate for the appellant-accused and Mr. K.L Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. 10. Mr. Barot, the learned advocate for the accused, contended 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 failed to prove the whole ingredients of the offence for which the accused is convicted and sentenced and thereby, the learned trial Judge has erred in coming to such a conclusion. He took this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence on record and submitted that the judgment and order of the trial Court convicting the present appellants is not tenable in the eye of law as the same is contrary to the evidence on record. He, drawing attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-2 Jabirbhai Shermohammad Memon, the brother of the deceased and complainant at exh. 11 and submitted that this witness has expressly admitted that this was the second marriage of the deceased. The earlier first marriage of the deceased had lasted for about three years and during the said period, she could not conceive and hence, she was unhappy with her first marriage and also not conceiving during her second marriage and this appears to be the prime reason for committing suicide. 11. The learned advocate for the accused, by inviting attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-3 Kherunisa Shermohammad Memon, the mother of the deceased, at exh. 11. The learned advocate for the accused, by inviting attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-3 Kherunisa Shermohammad Memon, the mother of the deceased, at exh. 16, submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the fac t, which has come on record in the evidence of this witness that even after the second marriage with the present appellant - accused, the deceased was going through the medical treatment as she could not conceive and was upset and appears to have taken such an extreme step of committing suicide and in the circumstances, more particularly, when the deceased had previous medical history, the present appellant - accused cannot be blamed and the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended in favour of the accused. 12. The learned advocate for the accused further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the aspect that both the panchas of the Panchnama of place of incident, exh. 32, have turned hostile and thereby, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, drawing attention of the Court to the deposition of PW-9 Jagdishbhai Devlabhai Katara at exh. 34, he submitted that this witness has categorically deposed in his cross-examination that on recording the statements of the witnesses, nothing revealed of offence having taken place. Moreover, it is also a fact that initially, an entry of accidental death had been registered. Moreover, PW-11 Dudabhai Danabhai, ASI, who had registered the janva jog entry, in his deposition at exh. 38, has specifically deposed that on investigation, nothing revealed of offence having taken place. 13. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the fact that the defence has examined as many as four witnesses to suggest that, in fact, due to the deceased could not conceive, she used to stay upset and under depression and eventually resorted to such an extreme step and the said fact, gets corroboration from the evidence of doctors, who had occasioned to treat her. 14. 14. Making above submissions, the learned advocate for the accused submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid important aspects of the matter and has come to such a conclusion against the appellant - accused, though there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused had demanded the tractor/shop from the parents of the deceased and since, the said demand was not fulfilled, he was perpetrating cruelty upon the deceased, which led to such an incident. On the contrary, there is ample evidence on record to show that since the deceased could not conceive, she was upset and in depression. Even, from earlier marriage, she had no progeny and she had been taking medical treatment and since the problem persisted during second marriage also, her treatment was continued, however, since, she did not get any result, she was upset and stressed, which had led her to take such a step and the said material aspect, the learned trial Judge has failed to consider at all. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence to connect the accused with the crime and under the circumstances, the accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt and eventually, he requested to allow the appeal against conviction and to dismiss the appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence. 15. In support, the learned advocate for the accused has relied upon following decisions: 16. Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 , more particularly, the Head Note ‘A’, which reads as under: “A Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 306 and 107 - Applicability of S. 306 - Sensitivity to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged - Relevant - Abetment of suicide-Conviction reversed - Allegation against appellant-accused for harassing his ‘deceased servant by accusing him of committing theft of gold ornaments, two days prior to servants death - Appellant, allegedly, also demanded Rs. 7000 from deceased, given in advance to him at the time he was kept in employment - Deceased, not able to bear harassment meted out to him, allegedly committed suicide-Appellants conviction under S. 306, upheld by High Court-Sustainability - Held, abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing - Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained - In order to convict a person under S. 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence - It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide - Also, reiterated, if it appears to court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience or court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty - Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day-to-day life - In facts and circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under S. 306 made out - Hence, appellants conviction, held unsustainable.” 17. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618 , more particularly, para 12, which reads as under: “12. This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression “may presume” suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to “all the other circumstances of the case”. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression - “the other circumstances of the case” used in Section 113-A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase “may presume” used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says - “Whenever it is proved by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it.” 18. In Thakor Bhikhaji Chhaganji v. State of Gujarat, passed by this Court on 29/08/2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2011, more particularly, para 5. 19. Whereas, Mr. In Thakor Bhikhaji Chhaganji v. State of Gujarat, passed by this Court on 29/08/2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2011, more particularly, para 5. 19. Whereas, Mr. Pandya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State supported the impugned judgment and order so far as conviction part is concerned and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law, does not call for any interference, however, so far as sentence imposed upon the accused is concerned, considering the gravity of the offence in question, the learned trial Judge has committed error in imposing the lesser and inadequate sentence. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has come to such a conclusion and convicted the accused, which is just and proper. He, taking this Court to the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as almost all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the documentary evidence also find corroboration with the same. He further submitted that there may be some contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, however, the fact remains that the offence had been committed by the accused, which is proved by the substantive evidence on record and accordingly, for minor contradictions, the whole case of the prosecution, which is otherwise proved beyond doubt, cannot be discarded or disbelieved. Moreover, he submitted that when the learned trial Judge has dealt with each and every aspect of the matter minutely and for coming to such a conclusion, plausible reasons have been given, this Court may not interfere in appeal filed by the accused and considering the offence committed by the accused and the sentence prescribed for such an offence, which is escalating day by day, he requested to enhance the sentence suitably and allow the appeal filed by the State. 20. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record and re-appreciated and re-evaluated the same on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. I have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the accused. 21. 20. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties and also gone through the evidence on record and re-appreciated and re-evaluated the same on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. I have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the accused. 21. Referring to the depositions of PW-2 Jabirbhai Shermohammad Memon, the complainant at exh. 11, PW-3 Kherunisa Shermohammad Memon at exh. 16 and PW-4 Anishaben Jabirbhai Memon at exh. 18, respectively, the brother, mother and sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased, prima facie, it appears that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused, however, having gone tough minutely to the depositions of aforesaid three witnesses, on the vital aspect, material improvements have been forthcoming on record, which has been duly admitted by each of these witnesses and proved by the deposition of the IO i.e. PW-10 Dhaneshbhai Ajitsinh Chauhan, exh. 36 as well as in the deposition of PW-11 Dudabhai Danabhai, ASI at exh. 38 and in light of the same, the other oral evidence is required to be considered an evaluated. If the deposition of PW-5 Shermohammad Rasulbhai Memon, the father of the deceased, at exh. 19 is referred, it appears that he had telephoned the deceased in the morning on the day of incident i.e. 26/12/2006 and the deceased had conveyed him that she was alright. Moreover, he has also admitted in the cross-examination that her daughter had never talked with him about the cruelty alleged to have been perpetrated by her husband, the appellant - accused. Moreover, this witness has admitted in his cross-examination that, ‘..My daughter had not conveyed anything about cruelty being perpetrated to her by her husband. My daughter and son-in-law both, had come to his house on 22/12/06 in the evening and stayed during night and on 23/12/06, her daughter had gone on picnic and returned at about 1:00 a.m in night On 24/12/06, his daughter and son-in-law brought their household articles and gone to Bhagal. On 26/12/06 at about 9:00 p.m he got the message on telephone through her daughter’. On 26/12/06 at about 9:00 p.m he got the message on telephone through her daughter’. Thus, from the aforesaid fact, it is clear that soon before the date of the incident, in fact, not only no cruelty appears to have been committed by the appellant - accused but, on the contrary, on 22/12/2006, the deceased as well as the appellant - accused had gone to the parental house of the deceased and stayed during night and on 23/12/2006, the deceased had gone to picnic and returned at about 1:00 a.m in the night. It has also come on record that the name of the elder sister of the deceased was Atikaben and the deceased had gone to the picnic arranged in the school where two children of Atikaben were studying and returned at night at 1:00 a.m Moreover, on 24/12/2006, the deceased as well as the appellant - accused had gone to the market and purchased some household articles which the deceased was selling at village: Bhagal, where they were residing and on 26/12/2006 at night, at about 9:00 p.m a telephone call was made by the father of the deceased to the neighbour of the deceased and the neighbour had called deceased and accordingly, she had talked with her father and said that she is alright. Referring the deposition of PW-1 Dr. Rajendrapuri Manekpuri Swami at exh. 8, it is revealed that he had recorded the history as narrated by the deceased, in her words. He has deposed that, ‘as informed by the patient, at about 12:30 a.m in the night after her husband slept, she burnt herself by pouring kerosene on her body’. 22. Moreover, if at all it is considered that any demand of tractor as well as of shop had been made by the appellant - accused, then also, as narrated in the complaint at exh. 12 as well as, as it has come on record, on 24/12/2006 at about 12:30 p.m, when the deceased and the appellant when had visited the parental house of the deceased, she was upset and accordingly, the complainant inquired as to why she was upset, to which, the deceased had replied that the appellant was asking to get tractor from his brother and on that count, was beating her. When the complainant informed the deceased that her husband, the appellant might not be able to manage the tractor, the appellant asked the deceased to demand shop from the complainant and when the complainant affirmed and hence, they both went from there. This theory, prima facie, appears not believable, more particularly, for the reason that the father of the complainant was a Talati who was suspended from the service and was not getting pension and was running a small shop and the complainant himself was driving and thus, the two persons were earning and the expenditure part was the appellant as well as the wife of the brother of the complainant and children and the persons and considering the fact that the appellant - accused was running a fruit lorry and thus, it is out of reach of the complainant if at all to fulfill the alleged demand made by the appellant - accused. If at all it is considered that the demand of shop had been made then also, the brother of the deceased has deposed that the shop had been rented and accordingly, within one month, he would handover the shop but thereafter, within a short span i.e. on 26/12/2006, the incident in question had occurred and hence, there was no question of fulfilling the demand of shop. Moreover, it has come on record in the deposition of the IO - PW-10 Dhaneshsinh Ajitsinh Chauhan at exh. 36 that statements of some neighbours had been recorded and in spit of the same, they had not been shown as witness in the charge-sheet and the explanation given by the IO for the same appears to be little surprising i.e. since the said neighbours were not supporting the case of the prosecution, they had not been shown as witness in the charge-sheet. It is a cardinal principle of the criminal jurisprudence that the investigation as well as the trial should be fair and should not be prejudicial to the either party but it appears that the IO has not justified the said principle and seems to be bold enough to admit such an action. 23. Further the defence has examined as many as four witnesses out of which, first one is the accused himself, who has narrated all the things which have been narrated in his Further Statement. Nothing substantial has come out from the cross-examination of the accused. 23. Further the defence has examined as many as four witnesses out of which, first one is the accused himself, who has narrated all the things which have been narrated in his Further Statement. Nothing substantial has come out from the cross-examination of the accused. Moreover, the defence has examined Dr. Sanjay Ramanlal Dharani as DW-2 at exh. 56 and Dr. Ananbhai Moghjibhai Chaudhary as DW-3 at exh. 58. Both these doctors are gyneacologists having degree of M.D (Gyneac), out of whom, DW-3 is the gold medalist. So far as Dr. Sanjay is concerned, he had treated the deceased on 01/04/2006, 31/05/2006, 16/06/2006 and 04/08/2006, whereas, Dr. Anand is concerned, he had treated the deceased on 09/08/2006, 22/08/2006 and 03/10/2006 and also given treatment for regularization of periods and for conceiving the child. 24. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that neither the DW-2 nor the DW3 had given any opinion that she was not able to conceive. I do not find any substance in the said submission as both the doctors are gyneacologists having degree of MD (gyneac) and one of them is a gold medalist. Besides, it has come on record that prior to the marriage of the deceased on 19/03/2006 with the appellant - accused, she had married to one Sabirhusen and the said marriage had lasted for three years and thereafter, since, they had no tuning, they got separated with the help of elderly people of their society. Her earlier husband had returned all the articles given to her during marriage as well as given Rs. 40,000/- for dissolution of marriage and thereafter, the deceased had stayed at her parental home for one and a half years and then, her second marriage solemnized with the present appellant - accused. It has also come on record that during the said span of three years of earlier marriage, she had never conceived and that may be the reason for dissolution of her earlier marriage. It has also come on record that during the said span of three years of earlier marriage, she had never conceived and that may be the reason for dissolution of her earlier marriage. During second marriage, she was getting treatment from the gynecologists as referred to above and thus, there appears substance in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant - accused that soon before the incident she had attended the picnic with her sister's two children and enjoyed motherhood and returned home late in the night at about 1:00 a.m and thereafter, as she could not conceiving, it may prompted her to commit suicide as she may be sensitive and staying upset and in depression. 25. Thus, considering the overall evidence on record in entirety, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the present appellant - accused beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusion arrived by the learned trial Judge appears to be without considering the aforesaid material aspects and considering all the aspects of the matter as discussed above, benefit of doubt is required to be given to the appellant-accused as the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to take otherwise view of the matter by showing any substantive and cogent evidence. Moreover, in the decision in Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that, ‘abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide conviction cannot be sustained. In order to convict a person under S. 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. In order to convict a person under S. 306, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. Also, reiterated, if it appears to court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to society to which victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, conscience or court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that accused charged of abetting suicide should be found guilty. Herein, deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in day-to-day life. In facts and circumstances of case, none of the ingredients of offence under S. 306 made out - Hence, appellants conviction, held unsustainable’. In the case on hand also, apparently, from the evidence on record and/or the facts of the case, there appears no mens rea at the end of the appellant-accused behind such crime; no demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt; there is no direct evidence so as to suggest that an action of the appellant - accused had led the deceased to commit the suicide and under the circumstance, even there is no vacuum for drawing any presumption against the appellant-accused. Thus, facts and circumstances of the case as well as re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence on records, leads to conclude in favour of the accused and accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2011, filed by the accused against conviction, deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order is required to be set aside, whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 1211 of 2011, filed by the State for enhancement, deserves to be dismissed. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2011, filed by the appellant - original accused against conviction, succeeds and the impugned judgment and order dated 30/06/2011, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banaskantha @ Palanpur, in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2009, is set aside and the appellant - original accused is acquitted of the charge for which he is convicted and sentenced. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1211 of 2011, filed by the State for enhancement of sentence, stands dismissed. The appellant - original accused is reported to be on bail. Hence, he is not require to surrender to custody, except he requires so in any other case and his bail bond shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P to the trial Court forthwith.