JUDGMENT : 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code whereby the the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offences. 2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:- 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that the daughter of the complainant namely Sadhnaben married with accused No.1 as per their ritual at Brampur, Taluka: Mangalveda, District: Solapur, Maharashtra and accused No.1 was serving as driver in Vasudhara Dairy at Chikhali Aalipur, District: Navsari and out of the wedlock, they have one child namely Shubham aged about eight months. It is the case of the prosecution that after delivery of two months, Sadhnaben was brought by her husband and sister-in-law and Sadhnaben was residing with her husband and child at Chikhali and two months prior on 22.05.2008, two kilometer away from the complainant’s Village: Kurul, where a Parmeshwar temple was situated and there was held pilgrim fair, Sadhnaben and her husband came there, but they did not go to the house of the complainant and Sadhnaben made telephone call. It is also the case of the prosecution that Sadhnaben informed the complainant that her husband was demanded Rs.50,000/- and giving mental and physical harassment. After two months, the complainant called Sadhnaben and told that why she did not make telephone call to her husband and thereupon she replied that her husband did not make a call and quarreled with her and, thereafter, the complainant tried to call accused No.1, but he did not respond and even accused No.2 was also demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-. It is further the case of the prosecution that on account of mental and physical torture, Sadhnaben had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and putting herself ablaze and committed suicide. It is further the case of the prosecution that on account of mental and physical torture, Sadhnaben had committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and putting herself ablaze and committed suicide. 2.2 On the basis of the said incident, the FIR came to be lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, drew the panchnama of the scene of offence, arrest panchnama and other panchnama and collected the articles from the scene of offence and sent to the FSL and they were arrested. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses and collected necessary evidence against the accused. 2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions at Navsari wherein it has been registered as aforesaid Sessions Case. 2.4 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 30.09.2008 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to them, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court. 2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses and also produced the following documentary evidence. 2.6 After closure of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 4. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.K. T. Beladiya, learned counsel for the respondents - accused at length. 5. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 4. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.K. T. Beladiya, learned counsel for the respondents - accused at length. 5. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat, while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective. She has submitted that the trial Court ought to have believed that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused, Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has established the case against the accused by examining the witnesses and except one witness, remaining witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses. She has submitted that the witnesses have stated in their evidence that on account of demand of Rs.50,000/- by accused No.1 for purchasing vehicle and mental and physical cruelty, the deceased committed suicide and in the said act, accused No.2 was also abetted. She has submitted that at the instigation of accused No.2, accused No.1 was giving mental and physical torture to the deceased and, therefore, deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her and set on fire, due to which she succumbed to be injury and at the time of suicide, she was carrying three months pregnancy and having child of eight months. She has submitted that on account of cruelty meted out to the deceased to the extent that she was unable to take any other recourse except the unfortunate steps to commit suicide for very short span of marriage, however, the trial Court has not considered the provisions of Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act and drawn the presumption against the accused. According to Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the complainant being mother of the deceased has in uncertain terms stick to her statement made in the complaint as stated before the Court in the same set, however, the trial Court has committed serious error by discarding and disbelieving the evidence of the complainant. She has submitted that the trial Court has neither appreciated the evidence of the concerned witnesses nor the oral as well as documentary evidence in its true and proper spirit. She has submitted that so far as the delay in registration of the FIR for about 20 days is concerned, the same has been explained by the complainant before the concerned Investigating Officer contending that after the death of deceased, she went to her native and on completion of post death ritual of the deceased and after consultation of near relatives, she has filed the complaint. 5.1 According to her submission, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 6. Per contra, Mr.Beladiya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. He has submitted that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal as there was no material or evidence come forward to prove the charge levelled against the accused. Mr.Beladiya, learned counsel has taken this Court through the evidence of the witnesses and has submitted that the witnesses have deposed that demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused for the purpose of purchasing transportation vehicle and they all have admitted that this fact has not been stated before the police. He has submitted that though there was sufficient material on record, despite of that the prosecution has not proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt relating to the ill-treatment and harassment. He has submitted that though there was sufficient material on record, despite of that the prosecution has not proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt relating to the ill-treatment and harassment. He has submitted that accused No.2 was residing at Village: Brahmpuri, Maharashtra whereas accused No.1 and deceased were residing in rented premises at Chikhali, Gujarat and therefore there is no question of cruelty on the part of accused No.2 and the fact with regard to instigation on the part of accused No.2 is completely erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has submitted that so far as the fact that accused No.1 sustained burn injury on his body and admitted in the hospital is concerned, he was present at the time of funeral, for which, the concerned Investigation Officer has admitted in the evidence that he has not collected any medical certificate of injury received by accused No.1. According to Mr.Beladiya, learned counsel, though the incident took place at Thala, Taluka: Chikhali, neither the statement of the witness from that area has recorded nor examined as witness and only statements have been recorded from the family members of the deceased at Maharashtra, which shows that the no proper investigation has been made. He has submitted that accused No.1 was driving transport vehicle and, therefore, number of days he was remained outside and even he was not present at his house when the incident took place. He has submitted that from the evidence of the relatives, it comes out that accused No.2 was just come to the Gujarat before about few days and, therefore, the allegation qua accused No.2 with regard to instigation for the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- is not believable and sustainable in the eyes of law. While referring to evidence and the impugned judgment and order, Mr.Beladiya, learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and no interference is required to be called for. He has submitted that there is no any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed. He has urged to dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 7. He has submitted that there is no any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and the same being meritless deserves to be dismissed. He has urged to dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 7. This Court has perused the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court and carefully considered the rival contentions, evidence and material placed on record. 8. The undisputed fact of the case is that accused No.1 got married with deceased in the year 2006 and out of the wedlock, deceased delivered boy child aged eight months and deceased also carried another pregnancy. It is also an undisputed fact that after about three months of the date of marriage, the deceased along with her husband moved to Thala at Navsari as accused No.1 serving as driver in the transport company and accused No.1 and deceased along with the child were residing separately and parents of accused No.1 were residing at Village: Brahmpuri. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No.1 wanted to purchase transport vehicle, for which he demanded Rs.50,000/- from the family of the deceased. Now, it appears from the record that there was no any cogent and material evidence come forward to suggest about the said demand and for the said reason, whether there was any cruelty meted out to the deceased which creates doubt. It is an undisputed fact that the ornaments of the deceased were received by the complainant from the family members more particularly accused No.2 or the story put forward by the prosecution that accused No.2 came with ornaments before about few days at the place for the purpose of repairing the ornaments and on the day of incident she handed over the same to the Sarpanch of the village. Looking to this aspect, it appears that the prosecution has not collected any material nor examined the Sarpanch with regard to the fact that the articles were handed over to the said person and there was no investigation for the same and, therefore, the said fact creates doubt as from where she got ornaments of the deceased. It also reveals that the prosecution has not examined any of the witnesses with regard to the said fact/ornament nor any investigation was made. It also reveals that the prosecution has not examined any of the witnesses with regard to the said fact/ornament nor any investigation was made. It is further undisputed fact that the story put forward by the prosecution that the deceased having separately mobile and her number is mentioned. In absence of her husband, the deceased could have made regular call to the family members or she could have informed with regard to these facts. However, the prosecution has not collected any mobile details or data nor produce any material to prove the charge. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant has received telephone call from the deceased, however, the prosecution has not collected any evidence to prove the fact that whether deceased has lastly talk with her mother or not. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the story put forward by the prosecution is completely got up and not inspire any confidence. In fact the witnesses have exaggerated their versions and there are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, which fact has been proved from the concerned witnesses and the Investigating Officer and, therefore, on the basis of the said evidence, the allegation with regard to the demand and cruelty meted out to the deceased cannot be believed and, thus, the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. So far as the fact that the deceased has committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set at fire and accused No.1 to save the deceased sustained serious burn injury is concerned, the prosecution has not produced and procured any evidence on the same. It is to say that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the case in proper manner and there are serious lapses in the investigation. 9. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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. However, Appellate Court 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. 10. Further, 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. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 11. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (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, reported in [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 Bihar and another, reported in [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, reported in 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. 12. 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, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:- “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, reappreciate 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. (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. (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.” 13. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record. 14. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record. 14. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Even on reappreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari in Sessions Case No. 42 of 2008 acquitting the accused is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.