ORDER : 1. This application is filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal recorded by 14th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara dated 6.8.2019 in Sessions Case No. 144 of 2017 acquitting the respondent-accused for an offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 Ms. Moxa Thakker, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken me through the impugned judgment as also the evidence brought on record before the trial Court. Vide order dated 17.1.2020 record and proceedings of trial Court was called for, which is received by this Court. 3. According to her submission, that the learned trial Judge could not have acquitted the accused for the offence alleged against them as marriage span of the deceased with the husband was too short being two years, when pursuant to a cruelty inflicted upon her, she committed suicide, a presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is required to be raised which learned Judge has failed to do so. She has further submitted that the deposition of the first informant as also the other witnesses including the witness to the scene of offence panchnama who is also a neighbour to the first informant is consistent and reliable and ignoring with depositions, learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused. She has further submitted that six months prior to the date of incident when she had visited her parental house, she was looking dull and, therefore, she was asked the reason about the same, to which, she disclosed that her in-laws taunting her for the domestic work as also the accused demanded dowry on the ground that they have not been provided upto their expectation. She has further submitted that, not only that, they were asking deceased to go to her parental home and bring the amount as also the gold. However, she was sent back to her matrimonial house with an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with her. She has submitted that considering the deposition of the first informant as also other witnesses, it is clear that not satisfied with the said amount they were harassing her which led her to commit suicide. She has further submitted that as coming out from the evidence on record, the savings in the bank account of deceased was also taken away by her in-laws. She has further submitted that as coming out from the evidence on record, the savings in the bank account of deceased was also taken away by her in-laws. She has further submitted that since she has not delivered a child though two years have been passed after their marriage on that ground also she was being harassed by the accused. Not only that, it is alleged that she was under treatment of the doctor which was also discontinued by the accused. She has further submitted that on date of incident i.e. on 12.3.2017 at about 10:00 a.m. deceased came to their house and after having a glass of water she had gone to upstairs and while coming down she was talking over the phone and saying that “do not come to take my dead body also.” After talking over the mobile phone she just vomited something and she could not control herself and therefore she was made to sit on a cot. Thereafter, she has informed the parents that she has been driven out from the house after beating her by the accused. Again she vomited there and thereafter she became unconscious. It is further the case of the prosecution that filthy smell of poisonous drug was coming out from her mouth and therefore they learnt that she has consumed some pesticides and, immediately an ambulance was called and she was taken to Sunshine Global Hospital and as she was declared dead, she was taken to SSG Hospital. 3.1. Thus, according to the submission of learned Additional Public Prosecutor not only the deposition of the complainant but other relatives of the deceased as also the panch witnesses who happens to be the neighbour to the complainant has also supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, learned Judge could not have acquitted the accused. Therefore, she has requested that the appeal be admitted and accused be convicted of offence charged against them. 3.2. To prove the case, prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses and proved and produced approximately 24 documents. 4. Kantibhai Hargovindbhai Joshi (PW-2) is the first informant and father of the deceased. According to his deposition on 7.2.2015, his daughter Vaishali married to accused No. 1 Nishant. 3.2. To prove the case, prosecution has examined in all 14 witnesses and proved and produced approximately 24 documents. 4. Kantibhai Hargovindbhai Joshi (PW-2) is the first informant and father of the deceased. According to his deposition on 7.2.2015, his daughter Vaishali married to accused No. 1 Nishant. At the relevant point of time, his son-in-law was serving as a teacher in a private school, whereas his daughter was serving as a teacher in Heaven School at Vaghodiya road. According to the witness, after about six months to her marriage, she had come to the parental house and informed that the accused are demanding dowry and in connection with thereto they were taunting her and harassing her. It is further deposed to that she was time and again sent to first informant for dowry by taunting her again and again. The said fact was according to the witness was told to her sister Binaben. However, the witness and other family members were persuading her to have patience. The first informant has deposed to before the Court as per the complaint citing instances about withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- from the saving bank account of his daughter which was her saving prior to her marriage. So far as incident dated 12.3.2017, witness has deposed that she was driven out after beating by the accused. Thereafter, she went upstairs to get her clothes and when she step down the stairs within 5-7 minutes and at that time she could not take care of herself and she vomited. It is further the say of the witness that she talked with accused No. 1 and informed him not to come for taking back the dead body of her. Thereafter she was taken to the hospital as she fell unconscious first at Sunshine Global Hospital where doctor declared her dead and thereafter she was taken to SSG Hospital for the purpose of postmortem. After postmortem was over in the hospital, Varnama Police has reached there with Magistrate also. Since it was late evening the dead body was not accepted at that time but it was taken from the hospital on the next day morning. Thereafter, the witness took the dead body to his native village and performed the cremation. According to this witness, for the incident dated 12.3.2017, an F.I.R. is lodged on 15.3.2017. Since it was late evening the dead body was not accepted at that time but it was taken from the hospital on the next day morning. Thereafter, the witness took the dead body to his native village and performed the cremation. According to this witness, for the incident dated 12.3.2017, an F.I.R. is lodged on 15.3.2017. He has further deposed to that for carrying out panchnama on 13.3.2017 police has come to his house and in presence of two panch witnesses of his village Maheshbhai and Pravinbhai it was carried out. When the witness was asked about how his daughter has died, it was informed by the witness that there were two cans of poisonous substance from where deceased daughter has consumed it, that too, upstairs in the middle room. Those two cans were shown by the witness to the police and it was seized under the panchnama. 5. The witness is cross-examined on behalf of the accused in detail. He has admitted that within 6-7 months of her marriage with the accused No. 1 she joined the service as a teacher. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has no documentary evidence to show that Rs. 25,000/- was ever withdrawn by his daughter. Witness has further admitted it to be true that for marriage of Vaishali with Jaimin Upadhyay, he had said no. He has further deposed that it is true that accused was never informed about affair of his daughter Vaishali with Jaimin. Witness has further admitted that accused No. 1 along with his daughter had visited his house on 9.3.2017 as his wife was not well. He has further admitted that after having dinner both had went back to Vadodara. Witness has in his cross-examination deposed that deceased Vaishali consumed poison and she became unconscious. The fact about she consumed poison and she became unconscious was never informed to the accused. However, he has to admit that at Sunshine Global Hospital accused No. 1-Nishant had reached. He has to further admit that on deceased being declared dead in Sunshine Global Hospital in an ambulance one Gautambhai as also accused No. 1 accompanied the dead body and went to SSG Hospital were postmortem was to be performed. However, he has to admit that at Sunshine Global Hospital accused No. 1-Nishant had reached. He has to further admit that on deceased being declared dead in Sunshine Global Hospital in an ambulance one Gautambhai as also accused No. 1 accompanied the dead body and went to SSG Hospital were postmortem was to be performed. He has further admitted that in his cross-examination that after the postmortem performed the in-laws of deceased Vaishali requested for the dead body for the cremation but it was refused by him. He has to admit that on next day, in the cremation, her in-laws and their relatives had come. Witness has to further admit in his cross-examination that except the present F.I.R. there is no complaint filed with the police station or in the Court with regard to any harassment or demand of dowry or valuable articles. 6. On the similar line there are depositions of Dharmishtaben Kantibhai Joshi (PW-3) wife of the complainant and mother of the deceased, Gautamkumar Natwarbhai Joshi (PW-4) son-in-law of the complainant as also brother-in-law of deceased, Binaben Gautamkumar Joshi (PW-5) daughter of the complainant and the sister of the deceased and Daminiben Manishbhai Patel (PW-6) so far as it relates to inflicting cruelty as also demand of dowry etc. However, the mother of the deceased had to admit in her cross-examination that after the marriage, Vaishali used to visit her parental house off and on. Similarly, they were also visiting her in-laws place on occasions. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that even a day prior to the alleged incident Vaishali as also accused No. 1 came to see her as she was not well. She has again admitted that after the marriage her daughter Vaishali got the job as a teacher in place of her mother-in-law. It is admitted that she also used to wear dresses as also saree. She has further admitted in her cross-examination that prior to the marriage of Vaishali with accused No. 1, she wanted to marry with one Jaimin of their own village. She has further admitted that said fact was never disclosed to any of the accused. 7. Saurabhbhai Mahendrabhai Acharya (PW-8) is the Scientific Officer from the F.S.L. who had examined the place of incident in presence of inquiry officer of Accidental Death Case No. 5 of 2017. She has further admitted that said fact was never disclosed to any of the accused. 7. Saurabhbhai Mahendrabhai Acharya (PW-8) is the Scientific Officer from the F.S.L. who had examined the place of incident in presence of inquiry officer of Accidental Death Case No. 5 of 2017. According to the said witness there was one staircase from the room itself to go upstairs which admeasures 35 x 22 ft where several bottles of poisonous substance found on which one plastic can having label of Monocrotophos 36% found and in the lower part of the staircase as also the floor found to be stained with the vomit. However, the said place was cleaned. The said witness had asked the police to send the said plastic cans to the F.S.L. for the purpose of examination as it contained 50 ml of liquid having strong odour. 8. The witness was cross-examined in detail. The witness had to admit that he had gone to the place of incident on 13.3.2017 at about 3:15 p.m. He has further submitted that the inquiry officer inquiring into accidental death case took him to the upstairs where alleged incident took place. He has further admitted that there were several bottles of pesticides and insecticides. 9. Narsinhbhai Chimanbhai (PW-9) is the hospital duty constable who recorded the vardhi given by the Doctor at SSG Hospital at 2:10 p.m. On 12.3.2017 with regard to deceased having consumed poisonous substance at about 10:00 a.m. at her parental home and first taken to Sunshine Global Hospital, Manjalpore and for further treatment brought at SSG Hospital. 10. Natwarsinh Parbatsinh (PW-13) who is P.S.O who recorded the vardhi given by the witness Narsinhbhai Chimanbhai. Maheshbhai Jaganath Joshi (PW-1) who is also panch-witness to the scene of offence panchnama and neighbour of complainant whose statement was also recorded pursuant to registration of an offence. He has deposed before the Court that on 12.3.2017 when he was standing outside his house to receive the guest, at about 10:00 a.m. he saw Vaishali coming to her parental home weeping and on inquiry she said that she has been driven out by her in-laws. Thereafter on hearing some shouts he came outside of the house and found that Vaishali has consumed some poisonous drug. The said witness appears to be the panch to the scene of offence as also neighbour of the first informant. Thereafter on hearing some shouts he came outside of the house and found that Vaishali has consumed some poisonous drug. The said witness appears to be the panch to the scene of offence as also neighbour of the first informant. As such he is not the eye witness to the incident but he claims to have seen Vaishali coming to the house with a crying face and on inquiry he is said to have been informed that the accused had driven her out. Witness has derived the knowledge of consumption of poisonous drug from complainant. 11. The deposition of the said witness appears to be nothing but exaggeration which will be discussed hereafter. 12. Abdulwahab Abdul Kadar (PW-11) is the P.S.O who was on a duty in the police station on 15.3.2017 who recorded an F.I.R. lodged by Kantibhai Hargovindbhai Joshi and the investigation of the same was entrusted to P.S.I. Gohil. 12.1. The said witness was cross-examined on the point that before registration of an F.I.R. he was knowing that for the very same incident an accidental death case is also registered. 13. Jaydipsinh Mansinh (PW-12) was the Head Constable in the Varnama Police Station who was entrusted with the inquiry into an Accidental Death Case No. 5 of 2017. Pursuant to it, he has carried out inquest panchnama over the dead body of deceased Vaishali. The clothes worn by the deceased at the time of incident produced by sweeper-peon working in postmortem room seized under a panchnama. Pursuant to the inquiry when he went to the place of incident, first informant Kantibhai Hargovindbhai Joshi had shown the place of offence and panchnama was carried out from where a can of Monocrotophos, a pesticide was found from the place of incident. He has also recorded statement of certain witnesses, wrote yadi for the purpose of postmortem, yadi to F.S.L. investigation van for the purpose of preliminary inquiry, forwarded the viscera collected by the doctor who performed postmortem sent to the F.S.L. for the purpose of examination. 13.1. This witness was cross-examined in detail on behalf of the accused. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the statement of parents as also uncle of the deceased was recorded during his inquiry into accidental death case registered prior to FIR. He recorded those statements as given by them. 13.1. This witness was cross-examined in detail on behalf of the accused. He has admitted in the cross-examination that the statement of parents as also uncle of the deceased was recorded during his inquiry into accidental death case registered prior to FIR. He recorded those statements as given by them. According to the witness, during the course of cross-examination, it was revealed that deceased Vaishali had gone to upstairs through the staircase under the pretext of getting old clothes and since she had not come back and found to be unconscious at upstairs, she was brought down from there and taken to the hospital. 14. Indrasinh Himatsinh (PW-14) is the investigating officer who has deposed to before the Court with regard to the investigation carried out by him and filing of the charge-sheet. During the course of cross-examination witness had to admit that during the investigation he had not seized the mobile phone of the deceased. At the same time he has admitted that he has not seized the mobile of accused No. 1. Witness has further admitted in his cross-examination that no statement of any officer of mobile company is recorded. Though the witness has filed the charge-sheet it did not contain statement of any of the neighbour of the accused. 15. Considering the evidence brought on record one thing is clear that the F.I.R. in the present case has come to be filed after about 3 days of the occurrence. Though incidentally, it may not have any direct bearing on the decision of this case, fact remains that prior to the registration of an F.I.R. an accidental death case was registered were statement of the first informant, his wife and brother came to be recorded which revealed that under the pretext of getting old clothes deceased went upstairs and consumed poison and lying there in an unconscious state and, therefore, she was brought down and taken to the hospital. Keeping in mind the said evidence coupled with the fact that in the F.I.R. as also the deposition of the first informant alleging the case against the accused deposed that while stepping down the stairs deceased was talking over the mobile to accused No. 1 and asking him not to come to take her dead body. Keeping in mind the said evidence coupled with the fact that in the F.I.R. as also the deposition of the first informant alleging the case against the accused deposed that while stepping down the stairs deceased was talking over the mobile to accused No. 1 and asking him not to come to take her dead body. The said fact narrated in the F.I.R. as also the deposition of the witnesses run counter to their own statements recorded in the AD inquiry as also scene of offence panchnama where she has alleged to have committed suicide. If, statements recorded during the course of accidental death case is considered, she was lying unconscious upstairs and therefore, there is no question of she stepping down the stairs talking on the mobile, that too, with the husband not permitting him to come to take the dead body of her with him is incongruous. 16. Considering the fact that at all times deceased as also the accused No. 1 had visited mother of the deceased when she was not keeping well. Not only that, accused No. 1 along with deceased took mother-in-law to different places for purpose of attending function at their relative's place. Not only that after the marriage, attempts made by the accused of she getting the service as a teacher in place of accused No. 3 i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased. 17. Coupled with the fact that there is an attempt by the first informant i.e. father of the deceased as also the mother of the deceased to suppress that deceased having affair with Jaimin of their own village and marriage with that Jaimin was not permitted by the first informant i.e. father of the deceased and said facts having not been disclosed to any of the accused, a possibility cannot be ruled out that she might have committed suicide not because of any so called cruelty as claimed by the prosecution witness but having failed in her love to get husband of her choice. At the same time the factum of accused having withdrawn the amount from the saving bank account of the deceased is also not supported by any documentary evidence if at all that was the intention of the accused she would not have been offered a service as a teacher, because of the attempts of the accused, in place of her mother-in-law i.e. accused No. 3. 18. 18. There appears no evidence on record to substantiate any allegation of inflicting cruelty on any count over the deceased. If that is so, no presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act be raised with regard to the abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased. 19. The very fact that investigation/inquiry into the accidental death case revealed that at the upstairs in the room, the incident took place where deceased found lying unconscious which is the statement diametrically opposite to the first information given by the father of the deceased. If the depositions of the prosecution witnesses are to be believed to be true in view of the fact that their statements recorded while accidental death case inquiry, it revealed a different story. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the commission of suicide by the deceased. However, there is no evidence brought on record by the prosecution to support the assertion that she was ever inflicted any cruelty on any count. Not only that the prosecution has failed to show how the accused instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. The factum of scene of offence panchnama being shown by the complainant i.e. father of the deceased herself witnessed by Maheshbhai Jaganath Joshi (PW-1) is nothing but exaggeration to bring the fact that she was coming to her matrimonial house crying on a ground that she has been driven out of her matrimonial home. To support such assertion, there is no evidence by the parents themselves. Therefore, it is nothing but an exaggeration, that too, by the neighbour of the first informant. 20. Considering overall evidence brought on record, there cannot be any other conclusion than that is reached by the trial Court. There being no evidence brought on record by the prosecution or shown by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take any contrary view, the leave to appeal cannot be granted. 21. 20. Considering overall evidence brought on record, there cannot be any other conclusion than that is reached by the trial Court. There being no evidence brought on record by the prosecution or shown by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take any contrary view, the leave to appeal cannot be granted. 21. Even if two views are possible while determining the acquittal appeal, the view which is in favour of the accused is to be accepted, then in such set of facts were according to the prosecution evidence itself, the story put forward by the prosecution witnesses at the time of inquiry into the accidental death case, and the story put forward by them after registration of F.I.R. depicting different version and, therefore, no interference in the order of acquittal passed by learned trial Judge is called for in this application for leave to appeal. 22. Hence, this leave to appeal is refused. 23. Consequently, upon rejection to leave to appeal application, Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 24. Record and Proceedings be sent back immediately to the trial Court.