JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Panchmahal, Godhra (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 154 of 2007, whereby, the learned the trial Court has acquitted the original accused-respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”). 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one Samratben wife of Jitsinh Raysinh Bariya lodged an FIR at Rajgadh Police Station being C.R. No. I-66 of 2007 against present respondents-original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of IPC wherein, the informant has stated that her daughter namely Neetaben (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) got married with the accused No. 1 before about two years and due to the said wedlock deceased delivered a male child aged about 11 months. 2.1 The deceased was residing with her in-laws in joint family. Initially, her marriage life went smoothly. Accused no. 1-husband of the deceased was studying at village Simaliya in college, wherein he got an extra material affairs with one girl of Sagtala and due to that the accused No. 1 was giving mental and physical torture to the deceased and for that accused No. 2 and accused no. 3 were instigated accused No. 1 and they were also giving mental and physical torture to the deceased. Earlier, on account of the said reason, the deceased came to the parental home and after persuasion of the family members, again she went to her matrimonial house and on that count, on the day prior to the date of incident, at late night hours she died by taking some poisonous substance because of the cruelty meted out by all the accused persons. With all that allegations, the first information report was filed by the informant. With all that allegations, the first information report was filed by the informant. The same was registered as C.R. No. I-66 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the I.P.C. 2.2 At this juncture, it is relevant to note that before registering of said FIR, the accused No. 2 being a father-in-law of the deceased has already informed the concerned police that her daughter-in-law was died because of snakebite and for that reason the accidental death entry was already recorded as entry No. 15 of 2007 on very day. He has stated that at midnight of 12.00 O’clock while they were sleeping in their house, at that time, the deceased while attending nature’s call, suffered from snakebite and the injury was also found on the leg and hand and some bleeding was also found, so that entry was already recorded by the jurisdictional police. At the same time, the impugned FIR was given by the mother of the deceased also recorded. Thereafter, initial investigation was carried by PSI Rajgadh, who has recorded the statement, prepared the inquest panchnama in presence of the Executive Magistrate and the dead-body was forwarded to Civil Hospital for the purpose of performing the postmortem. Since the death was occurred within a period of 2 years of marriage and therefore, he has informed Dy. S.P. Halol and thereafter FIR was recorded in presence of the Dy. S.P. Halol and then further investigation was carried out by the Dy. S.P. Halol by preparing the panchnama of the place of the incident and other necessary statements of concerned witnesses were recorded. Then the accused persons were arrested and sent to the judicial custody. 2.3 On receipt of the relevant material and after going through the details and since sufficient material was found against the accused persons, chargesheet was led in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Halol. The same was registered as Criminal Case No. 2104 of 2007. Since the case was exclusively triable by sessions and therefore, on completion of the formalities under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was registered as Session Case No. 154 of 2007. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons at Exh.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC. The trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons at Exh.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and therefore, the summons were issued to the concerned witnesses and the trial was commenced and on completion of recording of evidence and after hearing the arguments of both the sides the trial Court recorded the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. 2.4 In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 prosecution witnesses and also produced documentary evidences before the trial Court. 2.5 After considering the relevant material and evidence, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of present respondent accused on 31.5.2008 in Criminal Case No. 154 of 2007 and acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC. 3. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State of Gujarat and Mr. Mansuri, learned Counsel for Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4. Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State has taken this Court to the evidence of the witnesses in detailed. Learned APP for the applicant has submitted that the death of the deceased is within two years from the marriage and such circumstance suggests that the death of the deceased is an unnatural death and therefore, the prosecution has led the evidence and connected all the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC by examining 15 witnesses and also by producing documentary evidence. 4.1 Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State has further submitted that while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and while considering the documentary evidence, the Presiding Officer has committed a serious error of law and on facts both while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 4.2 Mr. 4.1 Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State has further submitted that while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and while considering the documentary evidence, the Presiding Officer has committed a serious error of law and on facts both while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 4.2 Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State has further submitted that considering the fact that marriage of the deceased has taken place before about two years and due to the said wedlock deceased delivered a male child aged about 11 months and death of the deceased is in suspicious condition as well as the fact come of record that the deceased died due to poisonous substance and therefore, under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have considered these facts while considering the submission of the prosecution and also while evaluating the evidence of the witnesses however, the trial Court has completely overlooked these facts and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of present respondents-original accused. 4.3 Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State has further contended that sufficient material was brought before the trial Court to connect all the accused persons with the crime in questions and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution that because of extra material affair of accused No1, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were harassing and giving mental and physical torture to the deceased and on account of that the deceased was earlier two or three occasions came to the house of the informant and after persuasions of their community leaders and their family members she again returned to her matrimonial home. He has submitted that all these facts suggest that there was cruelty meted out to the deceased and therefore, under such circumstance, learned trial court failed to appreciate that Section 113A of the Indian Evidence is required to be presumed against the accused persons. 4.4 Mr. He has submitted that all these facts suggest that there was cruelty meted out to the deceased and therefore, under such circumstance, learned trial court failed to appreciate that Section 113A of the Indian Evidence is required to be presumed against the accused persons. 4.4 Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State has further contended that the death is supported by the expert evidence including the report of FSL and the inquest panchnama and ultimately, it was found that the death was due to the poisonous substance found from the body of the deceased and therefore, under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have presumed against the present respondents and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court is illegal and unjust and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further contended that the independence witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution and even from the police witnesses, the prosecution able to establish the case against the present respondents, however, the trial Court has completely overlooked those evidences, while giving the benefits in favour of present respondents and acquitted the accused persons for the offence Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the IPC. 4.5 In view of the above submissions, Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant State has contended that the order passed by the learned trial Court is not in consonance with the settled legal principle and it is contrary to the facts of the case and it is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside and present Appeal may be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mansuri, learned Counsel for Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel for the respondents-original accused has submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the actual cause of the death of the deceased before the Court that either it was because of consuming a poison or it was snakebite or whether the accused have forcefully given a poisonous substance and therefore, under such circumstance, there was no actual cause come on record before the trial Court and thus, the trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the present respondents-original accused. 5.1 Mr. 5.1 Mr. Mansuri, learned Counsel for respondents has submitted that in fact it is the story put forward by the prosecution, on the basis of the first information recorded by the informant that there was an extra marital affairs of accused no. 1 and because that there was ill treatment and cruelty meted out to the deceased and for that there was no material come on record to the effect that whether the accused no. 1 is having any extra marital affairs or relations with any girl or not?. He has submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish this fact during the course of investigation and there was no material come forth and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is required to be called for in present Appeal and present Appeal deserves to be dismissed. He has submitted that it is initial case of the prosecution that by consuming poisonous substance the deceased committed suicide and during the course of oral evidence recorded by the trial Court, the concerned witnesses have tried to improvise their version and put forward the story that the deceased was forcefully given a poisonous substance by all the three accused persons, which is completely changed the scenario of the story of the prosecution. He has submitted that the original incident relates to the fact that the deceased sustained an injury because of the snakebite and therefore, the accused No. 2 being a father-in-law immediately rushed to the concerned police station at Rajgadh and has recorded the accidental death of the daughter-in-law and that very information is supported by the medical evidence of doctor, who has performed the postmortem and found that there was snakebite and because of that deceased sustained the injury and ultimately succumbed to the poison. He has submitted that for that the prosecution has referred and relied the FSL report and the report of histopathological examination however, the report of histopathological examination was not come on record and hence, the trial Court has also observed this fact while recording the reasons and therefore, under such circumstances, the trial Court has justified while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 5.2 In view of the above, Mr. 5.2 In view of the above, Mr. Mansuri, learned Counsel for the respondents urges that the order of the trial Court is in consonance with the settled legal principle and the same is just and proper and therefore, the same may not be disturbed and this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order of trial Court. 6. I have perused the material available on record as well as the documents appended thereto. I have also gone through the record of the Appeal and impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. I have also examined the evidence recorded by the trial Court. 7. After careful reading of the documents and after going through the evidence on record, it appears that the prosecution is unable to establish the case against present respondents. Before recording the reasons and before coming to the final conclusion, it is relevant to take into account the relevant provision of law, which reads as under: “Section 107 - Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing. Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1 - A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 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. Section 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. Explanation - For the purpose of this section “cruelty” means: (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Section 114. Abettor present when offence is committed - Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence. Section 113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. [Inserted by Act 46 of 1983, Section 7]: When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 8. On bare reading of above referred provision, there has to be an intentional abetment which is to be found or any cruelty meted out to the deceased for that purpose which is to be proved on record. Herein present case, the prosecution is unable to establish the offence of abetment to commit suicide. 8. On bare reading of above referred provision, there has to be an intentional abetment which is to be found or any cruelty meted out to the deceased for that purpose which is to be proved on record. Herein present case, the prosecution is unable to establish the offence of abetment to commit suicide. Even, from the bare perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, I find the lack of mens ria. In fact, initial story put forward by the informant is substantially washed away by the evidence of the other witnesses who have tried to improvise the version and from that omissions were proved on record that, the initial version of the informant was that the deceased has committed suicide by taking a poisonous substance due to the extra marital relation of accused No. 1 with some girl. In fact, on that aspect of extra marital relation of accused No. 1, there was no evidence come on record, no material was collected during the course of investigation, no evidence was given by any witnesses to the effect that with which girl the accused No. 1 was having any extra marital relation and with whom he wants to marry. 9. Therefore, under such circumstances, it appears that by put forwarding the story that all the accused have given a poisonous substance to the deceased forcefully, the witnesses have tried to convert the case from suicide to murder and therefore, under such circumstances, the findings record by the trial Court is just and proper. In fact, it is in line of the evidence recorded by the trial Court and there is no any infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 10. Further, the initial accidental case was recorded, which was disclosed by the father-in-law accused No. 2 herein that the deceased suffered a snakebite, which is supported from the medical evidence and during performing the postmortem, the doctor has also found all these injury on the body of the deceased, which leads to the Court to the conclusion that the deceased was died because of snakebite and therefore, under such circumstance, the trial Court has not committed any error nor any illegality committed, while passing the impugned judgment and order and there is no perversity found in the impugned judgment and order. 11. 11. Now, so far as the Appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal is concerned, the Appellate Court has ample power to reexamine, reevaluate and re-look the evidence of the witnesses and if ultimately the appellate court found that there was any illegality or any perversity in the judgment recorded by the Special Court, then the appellant court can certainly exercise the jurisdiction and reverse the findings recorded by the Special Court. However, in the present case there is no any illegality or any perversity found in the judgment and order of the trial Court. 12. It is also now well settled that while exercising powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. if the trial/Special Court while passing the order has committed any illegality or any perversity or has exceeded the jurisdiction, unless and until such facts come on record, the Court is very slow while dealing with an acquittal appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a series of judgments enunciated the principles while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378 against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is inasmuch as reappreciate the evidence, view or re-consider the evidence and if the Court finds that there is any illegality or any irregularity in the judgment then in that case only, the Court has power to entertain the appeal and interfere with the order of acquittal. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252 : (2024) 8 SCC 149 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 13. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252 : (2024) 8 SCC 149 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 13. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in Paras-20 and 21 as under: “Head Note (B) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S.378 - Appeal against acquittal - General principles regarding the power and duty of the appellate court, reiterated-Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, S.419 20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus: “42.......... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.” 14. The Court has framed general guild lines and principles while exercising the power under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of the acquittal and under the general guild lines issued by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that present appeal does not deserve to be entertained and the same requires to be dismissed. 15. Further, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has taken into consideration all the facts while acquitting the accused. It also appears from the impugned judgment and order that the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in its true perspective and has come to the right conclusion in acquitting the accused. 16. It also appears from the impugned judgment and order that the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in its true perspective and has come to the right conclusion in acquitting the accused. 16. Considering the above referred decisions and considering the facts of the present case, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Panchmahal, Godhra (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No. 154 of 2007 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, furnished by the respondents accused stands cancelled. 17. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.