JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. 1. The present Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the applicant-original complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 12.06.2006 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 1, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 86 of 2005, whereby all the respondents-accused were acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Provision of Dowry Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 05.04.2005, so-called incident took place and police authorities were reported on the next day. The applicant lodged the complaint at Dahod Police Station. It is stated by the complainant that they are residents of Godhra. The daughter of the complainant Varsha married with Harikrushna one and half mother ago from the date of incident. All the respondents living in a joint family and Harikrushna-husband of the deceased had his laboratory at his place. On 22.03.2005, wife of the applicant went Dahod to invite her daughter as per the customs of Holi festival, at that time, the deceased informed her mother that her husband demanded Rs. 2 lacs for renovation of his laboratory from her and if she would not bring money from her father, he will give divorce to her and informed that her husband has illicit relation with his niece. She also complained that her brother in laws and sister in laws used to torture her mentally as well as physically and demanded dowry from her. Thereafter, the applicant contacted to the uncle of the accused and had talk regarding this to him, he gave assurance to the applicant that this would not happen in future. On 03.04.2005, sister in laws of the deceased came to applicant's place at Godhara to take the deceased with them. On 05.04.2005, she committed suicide because of harassment of her husband, bother-in-laws and sister-in-laws. 3. The complaint was registered at Dahod Town Police Station as I-C.R. No. 54 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC. The investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. Panchanama of scene of offence and inquest panchnam were drawn. Medical papers were tagged with the investigation papers. Recovered Muddamal was sent to the FSL. Thereafter, respondents-accused were arrested. The investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. Panchanama of scene of offence and inquest panchnam were drawn. Medical papers were tagged with the investigation papers. Recovered Muddamal was sent to the FSL. Thereafter, respondents-accused were arrested. After collecting sufficient evidence by the Investigating Agency, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahod, which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 1405 of 2005. As the said case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod, committed the case to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, which was thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case No. 86 of 2005. 4. On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed against the respondents-accused vide Exh. 6. and read-over and explained to the respondents-accused for the alleged offences and plea was recorded, wherein, respondents-accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the accused person, prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 6. After examining the witnesses, further statement of the respondents-accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein the respondents-accused have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that they are totally innocent and they are wrongly charge-sheeted in the charge-sheet by the complainant. 7. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod vide impugned judgment and order acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, applicant-original complainant has preferred this revision application. 9. Heard Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned advocate for H.L. Patel advocates, for the applicant-original complainant and Ms. Avin Mehta, learned advocate for the respondents-accused. 10. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned advocate states that it is required to be noted that original complainant has not joined State of Gujarat as party respondent and even State has not filed any acquittal application/appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. 11. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned advocate contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, invalid and improper. He has also contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the case of the defence and material evidence produced on record and has passed absolutely wrong order. 11. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned advocate contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, invalid and improper. He has also contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the case of the defence and material evidence produced on record and has passed absolutely wrong order. He has contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, yet the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the probable defence of the respondents and has wrongly convicted the respondents. Learned advocate for the appellant-appellant argued at length and contended that the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is against the provisions of law and learned trial Judge has wrongly considered the evidence of the prosecution and wrongly convicted them for the alleged offences. She read the charged and evidence of mother of the deceased and complainant and argued that learned trial Judge has observed about one witness Rasikbhai, who was not examined by the prosecution, but to give justice and to examine the factum, the learned trial Court has examined the Rasikbhai as Court witness vide Exh. 55. Further, the learned trial Court has wrongly considered the evidence of mother of the deceased Champaben and complainant Vasantbhai. She then contended that marriage span is only about two months and newly wedded wife cannot commit suicide at matrimonial place except there is mental and physical torture was given to her by in-laws. She then contended that cause of the death is unnatural and according to the doctor, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. Mother of deceased Champaben deposed on oath that demand of dowry was made by in-laws and her husband threatened to give divorce, if she would not bring some money from her father to renovate his laboratory. She is a poor lady and she cannot run away from the house of the husband. From the inquest panchnama, it is made clear that the deceased has committed suicide because of provocation, instigation and abetment. She fairly admitted the mother of the complainant did not utter any single word in her deposition regarding the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased by them, but learned trial Judge has to consider sufficient evidence of Champaben and has to compare the same with the evidence of related witness Rasikbhai to convict the respondents-accused. She fairly admitted the mother of the complainant did not utter any single word in her deposition regarding the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased by them, but learned trial Judge has to consider sufficient evidence of Champaben and has to compare the same with the evidence of related witness Rasikbhai to convict the respondents-accused. Lastly, she contended that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondents and therefore, she prayed to allow this revision application. 12. As against this, Ms. Avni Patel, learned advocate for the respondents-accused has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely just and proper. She has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. She has contended that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced on record, order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely just and legal and is not required to be interfered with. She drew attention of the Court to evidence of witness Rakiskbhai and Champaben and observations made by the learned trial Court in paras-28 and 29. She the contended that in the evidence of Runal Raghunath Pawar, who was examined at Exh. 50, he stated that he did not recover any other document for bill or telephone bill. He admitted that he visited the laboratory of the husband, but he did not draw the panchnama. Evidence of this witness is totally contrary to the evidence of mother of the deceased-Champaben and therefore, is not helpful to the case of the prosecution because Champaben disclosed her evidence first time in the Court. She argued that the complainant and Champaben reached to the place of offence, but at that time the complainant was not given. Ms. Patel, contended that no doubt marriage span is about two months, but is the duty of the prosecution to produce evidence on record to prove the conduct of the respondents-accused to show that due to abetment, provocation and instigation, the deceased has committed suicide. She further argued that the fact that the deceased committed subside by consuming poison, case of the prosecution cannot be believed and considered. Lastly, she contended that learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them and therefore, she prayed to dismiss this revision application. 13. She further argued that the fact that the deceased committed subside by consuming poison, case of the prosecution cannot be believed and considered. Lastly, she contended that learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them and therefore, she prayed to dismiss this revision application. 13. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record of the case. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness and also perused the charge framed against the respondents-accused. 14. In present case, most important witnesses are Champaben and Vasantbhai. It is true that marriage span was only two months, but to prove cruelty, Section 498A is required to be considered, which reads as under:- "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." 14.1 Further in case of suicide, ingredients of Sections 306, 107 and 108 of the IPC i.e. abetment, instigation and provocation are required to be proved though oral versions of the witnesses. Suppose deceased has committed suicide, it is duty of the prosecution to produce evidence on record to proved that the deceased has committed suicide because of abetment, instigation and provocation. Learned trial Jude has considered the evidence of the prosecution in detailed in para-28 of the judgment and order. In present case, the learned trial Judge has rightly come to a conclusion that ingredients of Section 498A and 306 of the IPC are not proved through oral or documentary evidence. From the overall discussion, I am of the opinion that no prima-facie case is found against the respondents-accused and learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them. 15. I am, therefore of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them. Therefore, no interference is required. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.06.2006 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 1, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 86 of 2005, is hereby confirmed. Therefore, no interference is required. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.06.2006 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 1, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 86 of 2005, is hereby confirmed. The present application deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.