JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal @ Godhara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 02 of 2007 on 28.02.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A , 306 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as " IPC " for short). 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 The accused No. 2 was married to deceased Narmada and accused No. 1 is the father-in-law, accused No. 3 is the uncle-in-law, accused No. 4 is mother-in-law and accused Nos. 5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of the deceased Narmada. That all the accused used to tell the deceased that she was dark, short and did not know any household work and they did not want to keep her in the house and used to taunt her and physically and mentally harass the deceased. On 26/08/2006 between 17:00 hrs to 22:00 hrs., the deceased jumped into the well at Vadodar village and committed suicide and the complaint was filed by the complainant - Raysinghbhai Sorambhai Patel, the father of the deceased at Morva Police Station for the offence under Section 498-A , 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 being I-C.R.No. 74 of 2006 on 29/08/2006. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhara and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Panchmahal @ Godhara as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 2 of 2007. 2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 3 to 8, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE S. No. P.W. Nos Name of the witnesses Exh. 1. 1. Shantaben Raysingbhai Patel 12 2. 2. Bhupatbhai Raysing Patel 13 3. 3. Subhash Shyamnandan Sinha 30 4. 4. Raysingbhai Sorambhai Patel 32 5. 5. Kesamben Bhupatsinh Patel 33 6. 6. Rajesinh Kanjibhai Patel 34 7. 7. Chhtrasinh Naarsing Patel 36 8. 8. Babubhai Kanubhai Pandor 37 9. 9. Rajendra Visrambhai Ansari 39 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S. No. Particulars Exh. 1. Complaint 14 2. Inquest Panchnama 15 3. Panchnama of scene of offence 16 4. Panchnama 17 5. Police Report 18 6. FSL mobile report 19 7. Police Yadi 20 8. Receipt 21 9. Medical Certificate 22 10. Dy. Director FSL Yadi 23 11. Muddamal Ravangi Note 24 12. Dy. Director FSL Yadi 25 13. Muddamal Ravangi Note 26 14. Dy. Director FSL Yadi 27 15. PM Report 31 16. Compromised Report 35 17. Complain 40 18. Police Yadi 41 2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 43, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him. 3. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State with Mr. J.L. Chan, learned advocate for the original complainant and learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Barot for the respondent No.1-accused. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the prosecution has produced the oral evidences of nine witnesses and fifteen documentary evidences but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The reasons given by the learned trial Court are shaky and there are no cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the charge against the accused is not proved. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective. The reasons given by the learned trial Court are shaky and there are no cogent reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the charge against the accused is not proved. The learned trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective. The learned trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable and there was mental and physical harassment to the deceased by the accused and the evidence is sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence of Section 306 of the IPC . Learned APP has urged this Court that the impugned judgement and order is improper, perverse and bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Barot for the respondent No. 1- accused has submitted that The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences and passed the judgement and order of acquittal which is just and proper and no interference is required in the same and learned Advocate for the respondents has urged this court to reject the appeal of the appellant. 7. Learned advocate Mr. J.L.Chan appearing for the original complaint has adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and has urged this Court to allow the appeal of the appellant-State. 8. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P. , (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (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 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. 9. 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. 9. As the accused have been charged with the offence under Section 306 of the IPC , it would be apt to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradhesh in Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 and SLP (Cr) No. 11868/2023, wherein, in paras 11 to 17, 7 and 13 is observed as under:-:- 11. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:- “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.” 12. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:- “107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or 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; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or 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 or Thirdly - intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- "3. 13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- "3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …" 14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 , this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306 . 15. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 , this Court held as under:- “12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC , the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied] 16. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied] 16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC . 17. M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , wherein it was held as under:- 41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record where-from an inference of the appellant-accused having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein)may necessarily be drawn.” Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:- 45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.” [Emphasis supplied] 9.1 The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. That the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. That there is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.. 10. In light on the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 - Shantaben Raysingbhai Patel at Exh.12 and the witness is the mother of the deceased, who has stated that her daughter was harassed in her matrimonial home and she had come away once to her parental home and the Panch was called and an agreement was executed and one and half month, thereafter, her daughter was killed. Her daughter was found from the well and she went to see and found that her son-in-law had killed and thrown her in a well. Her husband had filed the complaint and the police had recorded her statement. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that her son-in-law was working at Surat and used to come home after two months. That when they went, her son-in-law was not present and at the time of the incident, there were heavy rains and the grass had grown very high in the fields. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that her son-in-law was working at Surat and used to come home after two months. That when they went, her son-in-law was not present and at the time of the incident, there were heavy rains and the grass had grown very high in the fields. That the well, in which, her daughter had fallen was a very small well, which did not have a construction on top and there was water on top of the well. There is a canal near the well and the entire land is slopy and the well is on the slope. That, if an unknown person would go to the place of offence, he would not know that there is a well at that place. 10.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Bhupatbhai Raysing Patel at Exh. 13 and the witness is the brother of the deceased, who has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that on the day of the incident, they were informed that the deceased was not found since 05:00 pm and they went looking around for her and on the next day, they found the dead body of his sister in the well. That his sister had committed suicide because of the harassment by her in laws.During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his sister was not found at home after 05:00 pm when she left the house with a sickle and after his sister had gone to her matrimonial home, her brother-in-law had gone to Surat for work. That water was flowing over the well. 10.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Subhash Shyam Nandan Sinha at Exh. 30 and the witness is the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Godhara, who had performed the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. The witness has stated that there was no external injury on the body of the deceased, and the probable cause of death is asphyxia following drowning.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that if a person accidentally fell in to the water, the body would be similar as the deceased. 10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 – Raysingbhai Sorambhai Patel at Exh. 10.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 – Raysingbhai Sorambhai Patel at Exh. 32 and the witness is the father of the deceased and the complainant, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the incident, it was rainy season and there were heavy rains and in Morva Taluka there was a downpour. That the water in the well was till the brim and he had gone to the well and found that the grass and crops were decayed. The well belonged to the father-in-law of his daughter and he had immediately informed the Morva Police Station. He had gone to village Vadodar with others along with Sulemanbhai. 10.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Kesamben Bhupatsinh Patel at Exh. 33 and the witness is the sister-in- law of the deceased, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the father-in-law of the deceased told her that the deceased had gone to cut grass with the sickle and disappeared thereafter and he had come to inquire whether she was at home. That at the time of the incident, it was a peak of monsoon and there were heavy rains and the well was a small well, which did not have any construction on the outside. The area around the well was a very slippery place. 10.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Rajesinh Kanjibhai Patel at Exh. 34 and the witness is the uncle of the deceased, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his signature is not there in the agreement and the agreement does not bear the signature of any person from their village. The witness has produced the agreement at Exh. 35. 10.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Chhtrasinh Naarsing Patel at Exh. 36 and the witness is the uncle of the deceased, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the document produced at Exh. 35 it is mentioned as to which panch is from which village. 36 and the witness is the uncle of the deceased, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the document produced at Exh. 35 it is mentioned as to which panch is from which village. That he had gone to well at the place of incident and the agreement does not bear the signature or thumb impression of any panch person from their village. 10.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Babubhai Kanubhai Pandor at Exh. 37 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure that he had undertaken during the investigation. 10.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Rajendra Visrambhai Ansari at Exh. 39 and the witness is the Police Officer, before whom, the complainant had filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh. 40.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that prior to filing of the complaint, the accidental death was registered at Morva Police Station and he does not know whether the statement of the complainant was recorded in the accidental death investigation. 11. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence have come on record and there is no iota of evidence that the deceased was harassed in any manner by the accused. After the incident has occurred, Accidental Death No. 24 of 2006 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, 1973. was recorded and the investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and had drawn the inquest panchnama as also the panchnama of the place of offence, during which, no cognizable offence was made out. It as emerged on record that the accused No. 2, who was the husband of the deceased was residing at Surat and he was not present at the time of incident. The prosecution has mainly relied on the document produced at Exh.35, which is the agreement between complainant - Raysinghbhai Sorambhai Patel, the father of the deceased and the accused No. 1 and it bears signatures of a number of persons. The documents does not specify any particular incident and the document states, it was the fault of the husband of the deceased and if there was any harassment, they would execute a divorce in Rs.1,51,000/-. The documents does not specify any particular incident and the document states, it was the fault of the husband of the deceased and if there was any harassment, they would execute a divorce in Rs.1,51,000/-. There is no evidence as to how this agreement was executed and none of the panch witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The witnesses who have been examined by the relatives of the deceased and it has emerged on record that at the time of the incident, there was heavy rain in Morva Taluka and the place wherein the incident has occurred, was submerged under water and the well did not have construction on top. That if any unknown person would go at that place, they would not know the existence of the well and water was flowing above the well. It appears that on the date of the incident, the deceased had gone to bring grass with the sickle and it cannot be ruled out that the deceased had accidentally fallen into the well. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence and has found that there is nothing on record to point out to the guilt of the accused and that they had intentionally abetted, incited, or provoked the deceased to commit any act to put an end to her life, and there is nothing to suggest that immediately prior to the incident, there was any quarrel between the deceased and the accused. 12. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Mahendra Awase (Supra), the learned trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal @ Godhara in Sessions Case No. 02 of 2007 on 28.02.2007, is hereby confirmed. 14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.