Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 178 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Manda Arjan Aahir

2025-02-28

S.V.PINTO

body2025
JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 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, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2007 on 06-07-2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court by giving the benefit of doubt has accquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 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” 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. 1 Maldabhai Arjanbhai Ahir had some dispute with the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai and he had given an application in the police station against the accused, which was known to the accused, and the accused were threatening him to withdraw the complaint or to leave the village and go elsewhere. That as the accused were frequently threatening and physically and mentally harassing the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai, he got fed-up and on 09.09.2003, some time before 19.30 hours, jumped into Falku river at Bhanwar and committed suicide. That the accused had abetted the suicide of the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai and his wife, Satiben @ Santokhben wife of Hameerbhai Kanabhai, Ambaliya Ahir filed a complaint on 16.09.2003 before the Bhanwar Police Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No.95 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC . 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed chargesheet before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khambhaliya and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Khambhaliya as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 133 of 2003. 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 and a charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 to 12, 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 thirteen oral evidences and twenty five documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.65, 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 them. 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 respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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 respondents 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 Mr. Bhargav Pandya, for the appellant State. Though served the respondents, none has appeared either in person or through an advocate. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya, for the appellant State. Though served the respondents, none has appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated direct and indirect evidence in the case. The complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully prove the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. The order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed. 6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in 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, 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. 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.. 7. 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.. 7. As the appeal pertains to a case under Section 306 of the IPC , it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. The State of Madhya Pradhesh Criminal Appeal No. 221/2025 and SLP (Cr) No. 11868/2023) passed on 17 th January, 2025 which is 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] 8. 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. 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. 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. 9. 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 Hameerbhai Kanabhai Karavadra at Exh.17 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama produced at Exh.18 and 20, whereby, the dead body of the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai was found from the Falku river at Bhanwar and the panchnama was drawn, and from the pocket of the deceased, a stamp paper of Rs.10/- with some writing was seized, and some water from the river was taken in a glass bottle and seized by the police during investigation. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Arjanbhhai Samat Chauhan Satwara at Exh. 21, and the witness is the Panch witness of the panchnama produced at Exh.18, whereby the dead body of the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai was recovered. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Arjanbhhai Samat Chauhan Satwara at Exh. 21, and the witness is the Panch witness of the panchnama produced at Exh.18, whereby the dead body of the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai was recovered. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. 9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3 Aalabhai Kachrabhai Vaghela at Exh.24 and the witness is a social worker, who has stated that on 09.09.2003, while he was at Bhanwar, at around 7.00 pm, one person came and told him that there is a dead body of a person in the Falku river of Bhanwar and the person had drowned and he went to the Bhanwar Police Station and informed the police, and went with the police to the place of incident. A number of persons had gathered there, and a swimmer was called and the dead body was taken out, and from the pant pocket, a plastic bag was found, in which, there was some money and one written stamp paper, which is produced at Exh.19.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate of the accused, the witness has stated that he had orally informed the police about the incident and he had gone along with the police in the police jeep. When he reached the place, there were a number of persons, who had already gathered there, and while they were inspecting the dead body, he was standing nearby, and at that time it had become dark. That the dead body was being inspected in torch light and in the light of the jeep and he does not know what the police did to the plastic bag, which was tied with a rubber band. 9.3 The prosecution has examination the Prosecution Witness No. 4 Meraman Visa Karavadra at Exh.25 and the witness has stated that he has 50 vigas agricultural land in Bhanwar Taluka, Navagam, and about 3 years ago, while he was at his field, and was sitting to have his lunch, a person came near him and he asked him if he wanted to have some food and he gave him some food to eat. The person did not identify himself, but he had worn white clothes, and he had his lunch and went away. The person did not identify himself, but he had worn white clothes, and he had his lunch and went away. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the cross-examination, nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Kailash Parshottambhai Hindocha at Exh.26, and the witness is the Stamp Vendor, License No. 4/94. The witness has stated that on 5-9-2003, he had sold a stamp paper of Rs.10 to Ahir Hameerbhai Kanabhai residing at Jhampur, at Serial No. 1833, and he had taken the thumb impression of the person. The witness has identified the stamp paper produced at Exh.19, and has stated that after some time, the person came back and asked him to type something, but he told him to come after some time, and in the afternoon, the person came to his office, and he was sent to the top floor, where the computer was kept.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the person did not have any stamp paper dated 03-09-2003, and he does not know whether the stamp paper dated 09-03-2003 was given by his brother. That the police did not show him the stamp paper, which the computer typed, and a number of persons come to purchase stamps, and if the person states his name, he would trust on him and write the name on the stamp paper. 9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Sohil Mansukhlal Parmar at Exh.27, and the witness is the Computer Operator who had typed on the stamp paper, and he has stated that he was working as a part-time computer operator in the office of Hiteshbhai Hindocha. On 5-9-2003, a person came with a blank stamp paper of Rs.10/- and a blank paper on which something was written, and asked him to type the written material on the stamp paper, and accordingly he typed it on the stamp paper, which is produced at Exh.19. On 5-9-2003, a person came with a blank stamp paper of Rs.10/- and a blank paper on which something was written, and asked him to type the written material on the stamp paper, and accordingly he typed it on the stamp paper, which is produced at Exh.19. The witness has stated that in his presence, the person did not affix his signature or his thumb impression.During the cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness has stated that he cannot identify the handwriting, which were on the paper, that was, brought by the person and in the document at Exh.19, it is written LTH of Hamer Kana, but in his presence nobody had affixed the thumb impression. That, as he is working in the office of an advocate, a number of persons come for computer work and he cannot identify them. 9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Dr. Sanjeevkumar Siran Nathusingh Chaudhary at Exh.29, and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was a tutor in the Forensic Medicine Department, and has conducted the postmortem of the deceased Hameer Kanabhai on 10-09-2003. The witness has produced the postmortem note at Exh.30 and has stated that there were no visible injuries seen over the body, and the cause of death was kept pending as the viscera was taken for chemical analysis and sternum was taken for diatom test. That, after the FSL test reports were received, the final cause of death was due to drowning in water.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the body was decomposed, and the probable cause of time of death was not mentioned in the postmortem note. The witness has also stated that he had seen the FSL report for the first time in the Court, and the police did not ask him for the final cause of death certificate. That the death of the deceased could be accidental, suicidal or homicidal. 9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Satiben @ Santokben wife of Hameerbhai Kanabhai Ambaliya at Exh.35 and the witness has stated that her husband and Mesurbhai had a dispute about a camel cart and her husband had filed applications against him. That the accused No. 1 Mandabhai Arjanbhai Ahir was friends with Mesurbhai and the accused No. 1 had stopped talking to her husband. That the accused No. 1 Mandabhai Arjanbhai Ahir was friends with Mesurbhai and the accused No. 1 had stopped talking to her husband. That one year prior to the incident, her husband had sold the camel cart and taken a mill for grinding grains and placed it in Jampur village but the business was not going very well and her husband had wound up the business and come back home and was doing labour work. That there was a dispute with the accused No. 1 Mandabhai about the agricultural land and her husband had told her to pack the luggage and he would bring a tractor on rent. That he had also filed a case for protection in the Bhanwar Court and the accused No. 1 had threatened him to withdraw the case or he would kill him, but she was waiting for her husband to come with the tractor and he had telephoned her and told her to keep the cow at home and they would fill the luggage and go away that he did not return and she was informed to go to the Bhanwar Government Hospital where she saw the dead body of her husband. That all the accused had got together and killed her husband as they did not want him to live in the village when she had filed the complaint which was produced at Exh.36.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she did not mention in the complaint that the accused No. 1 had a dispute with her husband and there are no witness to the accused threatening her. That when she went to the Bhanwar Hospital, she became unconscious. 9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Devabhai Kanabhai Ambaliya at Exh 37 and the witness is the brother of the deceased, who has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that all the accused had thrown his brother into the river and killed him.During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that his brother did not inform him the names of the persons, who were threatening him and he did not file any application before the police. That no panchnama was drawn in his presence at Bhanwar Hospital and when they went to Bhanwar Hospital to identify the dead body, they did not file any complaint. 9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Lakhmanbhai Jinabhai Pindaria at Exh. 38 and Prosecution Witness No. 11 Keshurbhai Jinabhai, Pindaria at Exh.39 and both the witnesses are the nephews of the deceased.During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witnesses have stated that they had known from other persons that their uncle had some dispute with the accused No. 1. 9.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12 Kalubhai Khodabhai Makwana, ASI, Dhrol Police Station at Exh.41 and the witness is the PSO, who was on duty on 17-09-2003 at the Bhanwar Police Station and he has stated that on 17-09-2003, accidental death No. 23 of 2003 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by PSI, Mr. J. J. Pandya and the complainant had filed the complaint, which was entered in the station diary at Entry No. 3 at 2.30 pm. The offence was registered at I-C.R. No. 95 of 2003 under Sections 306 and 114 of the IPC and the investigation was forwarded to PSI, Mr. J. J. Pandya. 9.11 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 13 Jaikumar Kantilal Pandya at Exh. 47 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail all the procedure undertaken by him during investigation.During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not collect any evidence as to who had drafted the writings on the stamp paper at Exh. 19 and on the basis of the application filed at Exh.52, a chapter case was filed. That he has not recorded the statements of any persons regarding the application at Exh. 52 and he has not collected the documents of the chapter case and does not know what has finally happened in that case. That there are no eyewitnesses, who have seen the deceased jumping into the water and the incident had occurred during the monsoon. That the deceased had a dispute with Mesur Uka, who had a camel cart and during investigation, it was not found that any complaint was filed against him by the deceased. That there are no eyewitnesses, who have seen the deceased jumping into the water and the incident had occurred during the monsoon. That the deceased had a dispute with Mesur Uka, who had a camel cart and during investigation, it was not found that any complaint was filed against him by the deceased. That during investigation it was also not found that the deceased had filed any application in the Bhanwar Court for protection. That when the complaint of the complainant was being recorded, her brother-in-law Devabhi Kanabhai was present and he has not recorded the statement of Mesur Uka during investigation. That the complainant did not say that the accused No. 1 had threatened her husband to withdraw the case. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused were threatening the deceased Hameerbhai Kanabhai to withdraw the case and hence he was harassed and he had committed suicide by jumping in the Falku river of Bhanwar. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, the complainant or the relatives have not made any allegations against any of the accused and all the allegations and the disputes were with Mesur Uka and the Investigating Officer has not recorded his statement. The complainant has stated that because of the dispute with Mesur Uka, the accused No. 1 had stopped talking to the deceased and there is no iota of evidence that any of the accused had met the deceased immediately prior to the incident. The evidence, that has emerged on record, is that the deceased was uncertain about the occupation that he has to do and he had earlier taken a camel cart but had dispute with Mesur Uka and had sold the camel cart and had bought a mill for grinding grains but that business too was not successful. There is no iota of evidence that any of the accused had met the deceased at any time prior to the incident and as far as the application against the accused is concerned, a chapter case was already filed but the Investigating Officer has not investigated about the same. There is no iota of evidence that any of the accused had met the deceased at any time prior to the incident and as far as the application against the accused is concerned, a chapter case was already filed but the Investigating Officer has not investigated about the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that any of the accused had incited, coded, urged or abetted the accused to commit suicide and the ingredients of section 306 of the IPC are not made out in the evidence of the prosecution. 11. 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. 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 extending benefit of doubt and 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. 12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya in Sessions Case No. 133 of 2007 on 06-07-2009 on 11.12.2007, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.