JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The Appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present Appeal under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment and order dated 30-9-2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 427 of 2012, acquitting the respondents accused for the offence punishable under Secs. 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C." for short). 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the respondents accused used to beat the deceased for trivial reasons and tortured her physically and mentally, due to which, she committed suicide by jumping in Sabarmati River at Nehru Bridge, Ahmedabad. Thereby, the respondents accused committed an offence punishable under Secs. 306 and 114 of I.P.C. 3. After registration of complaint, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was triable by learned Special Court, the same was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.1. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence. 3.2. Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.3. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating evidence on record, the learned trial Court delivered the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 30-9-2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 427 of 2012 acquitting the respondents accused, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 30-9-2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 427 of 2012 acquitting the respondents accused, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani for the appellant-State of Gujarat has taken this Court through the entire record and proceedings and argued that since real mother of the deceased previously committed suicide, the respondents-accused Father, grandparents and stepmother of the deceased were not treating her well and were constantly harassing her subjecting her to cruelty, due to which, she fed up and ultimately on 5-4-2012, she took the extreme step of falling into Sabarmati River at Nehru Bridge and committed suicide. Learned A.P.P. has also argued that the case of the prosecution is clearly established from the evidence of maternal grandfather as well as other near relatives of the deceased. According to her submission, though the prosecution proved its case, the learned trial Court wrongly acquitted the respondents-accused, which deserves to be converted into conviction. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Viral Vyas Appearing on behalf of learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the respondents read over the evidence of material witnesses and argued that upon sad demise of real mother of the deceased, the deceased was kept in the custody of the present respondents and they were nourishing her and she studied upto T. Y.B. Com. Learned Advocate for the respondents has also submitted that the deceased was also participating in cultural and other activities and she earned distinctions and certificates from other extra-curricular activities. He has further submitted that even the engagement ceremony of the deceased was publicly celebrated and the respondents were treating the deceased well. Ultimately, he has argued that no proximate cause is revealing so as to instigate or induce the deceased to commit suicide. He has argued that no circumstance is revealing that the deceased was put to such a situation by the respondents, whereby there was no option for her but to drive herself to commit suicide. 6. This Court has minutely gone through the entire record and proceedings, evidence of material witnesses as well as impugned judgment and order. 7. The prosecution examined only three witnesses namely maternal grandfather, maternal uncle and maternal aunt. 6. This Court has minutely gone through the entire record and proceedings, evidence of material witnesses as well as impugned judgment and order. 7. The prosecution examined only three witnesses namely maternal grandfather, maternal uncle and maternal aunt. They have merely shown suspicion on the conduct of the respondents and that is in the nature of hearsay. They have apprehended that as real mother of the deceased previously committed suicide, the respondents accused were not treating her well which led her to commit suicide. 8. The learned trial Court while dealing with the evidence on record, rightly answered the points of determination. The evidence on record is rightly dealt with whereupon the learned trial Court recorded a clear finding that the evidence of aforesaid three witnesses is hearsay in nature. The record and proceedings also clearly indicates that the deceased was pursuing her study in T. Y.B. Com. and her engagement ceremony was also celebrated in grand manner. The deceased also earned several distinctions as well as certificates by participating in cultural and other extra-curricular activities along with her study. That clearly depicts that the respondents were allowing her to live at her own will and were also allowing her to participate in various activities. It is indicative of the fact that the respondents were treating her well. 9. The record and proceedings either from the mouth of the aforesaid three witnesses or from other evidence on record is not disclosing as to what had happened which led the deceased to commit suicide. Consequently, therefore, no evidence is available on record so to link the present respondents with the crime in question. 10. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal and is dismissed. The record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.