Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 270 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Ashoksinh Jagdishsinh Rajavat

2025-03-13

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 learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam, District: Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2009 on 26.02.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 323, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 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. 1 was the husband, accused No.2- the brother-in- law, accused No.3- the father-in-law and accused No.4-the mother-in- law of Lakshmiben, the daughter of the complainant Rajvirsingh Shrijandelsinh Shikarwa (Rajput). The accused used to demand an amount of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle as dowry from the deceased Lakshmiben and would physically and mentally torture her and even though the deceased was pregnant, the accused No.1 gave her two kicks on the stomach and caused her injury. As Lakshmiben was fed up of the torture, on 08.06.2009, she hanged herself and committed suicide. The complaint was filed by the complainant Rajvirsingh Shrijandelsinh Shikarwa (Rajput) before the Viramgam (Town) Police Station under Sections 306, 498-A, 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act, which was registered at Viramgam (Town) Police Station I-C.R.No. 37 of 2009 on 12.06.2009. 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 the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Viramgam and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Viramgam as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 12 of 2009. 2.3] The accused was 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. 11 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 12 to 15, 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 eighteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.50, 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 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. Dhwani Tripathi, for the appellant State. Though served, the respondents have chosen not to appear 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 Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, for the appellant State. Though served, the respondents have chosen not to appear 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 Ms. Dhwani Tripathi 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 the 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 proved 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. That 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 reported in 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. 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. 8. 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 (@ 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. - 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. ...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. 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. 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. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Maheshkumar Gunwantrai Vyas at Exhibit 17 and Prosecution Witness No. 2 Vinodbhai Bhailalbhai Kanjaria at Exhibit 21. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exhibit 18. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have 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. 3 Pushpaben Bhailalbhai Kanjaria at Exhibit 22 and Prosecuiton Witness No. 4 Sandeepkumar Govindbhai Patel at Exhibit 23. Both the witnesses along with Prosecution Witness No. 1 Maheshkumar Gunwantrai Vyas are the panch witnesses of the inquest panchnama, which is produced at Exhibit 19. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and have been cross examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.2 Prosecution Witness No. 5 Dr. Vijaykumar Purshottambhai Prajapati examined at Exhibit 26 is the Medical Officer, who has performed the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Laxmiben wife of Ashokbhai Jagdishbhai. The witness has produced the postmortem note at Exhibit 28 and the witness has stated that the postmortem was conducted by him along with panel Dr. Balchandbhai Khodabhai Vaghela on 08-06-2009 between 14:00 to 15:30 hours. As per column No.17, there was a ligature mark 32 centimetres long, 0.7 centimetre wide / deep groove present all around the neck, which was more deeper below the chin and left lateral side of the neck and less deeper and higher on the right lateral side of neck. The ligature mark was brownish coloured and the knot mark was on the right lateral side of neck. The injuries were ante-mortem and there was a 30-31 week dead foetus of around 7 months in the uterus. As per their opinion, the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there were no other injuries besides the ones found in column No.17 and if a person was injured by the hand or any other manner, the mark of injury would remain up to 5 to 7 days. That no injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased besides the ligature mark on the neck. 9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Rajvirsinh Brijendalesinh Rajput at Exhibit 30 and the witness is the complainant, who has stated that his daughter Lakshmiben would tell his wife Guddidevi about the ill-treatment at her matrimonial home and that the accused were demanding Rs 50,000/- and a motorcycle. The marriage of Babita, the daughter of his brother-in-law Lakshmansinh was arranged and the accused did not allow his daughter to go for the wedding and the accused No. 1 kicked his daughter Lakshmi and beat her with a belt. The marriage of Babita, the daughter of his brother-in-law Lakshmansinh was arranged and the accused did not allow his daughter to go for the wedding and the accused No. 1 kicked his daughter Lakshmi and beat her with a belt. That he and his wife had come to reside at Viramgam and were residing with the accused and he was going for labour work of painting along with the accused No.1. That he had sat in the train going towards Gorakhpur and his daughter was crying as the accused No.1 was physically assaulting her and at that time the accused No.1 had demanded a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- and he told them that he would give them the same but not to harass his daughter. That when he reached Ratlam, the Police told him to talk to the accused No.1 who told them to return. That he did not return and went to his hometown and he found that his daughter had expired. That he does not know how his daughter had expired and he had filed the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 31. 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, wherein, he has stated that he does not remember whether he has mentioned some allegations in the complaint or not. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the other accused were residing separately from his daughter and her husband and after he lost his job at Kadi, he had come to reside at Viramgam. That the accused No.1 would go for work the whole day and in the complaint, he has not mentioned that the accused had demanded any dowry before the marriage or at the time of the marriage. That the police did not read out the complaint to him and he wanted to take his daughter to his hometown and the accused No.1 had refused to send her. That he does not know whether the doctor had advised his daughter against travelling for long as she was pregnant and he wanted to take her with him at any cost. That he does not know whether the doctor had advised his daughter against travelling for long as she was pregnant and he wanted to take her with him at any cost. That he did not book the reservation for his daughter in the train to go to his hometown and from the time that his daughter was married till he gave the complaint, no other complaint was filed against the accused. That he did not tell anyone that the accused were demanding for Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle from his daughter and while he was residing at Viramgam, he did not file any complaint of ill - treatment to his daughter. . 9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Omendrasinh Bharatsinh Rajput at Exhibit 32 and the witness is the nephew of the complainant, who has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that the accused were demanding for Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle and he had told his uncle and aunt about the same. The accused had murdered Lakshmiben and he had come to know that they had strangulated her. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in his statement before the police, he has not stated that the accused had strangulated Lakshmi and killed her. 9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Guddidevi wife of Rajvirsinh Brijandelsigh at Exhibit 33 and the witness is the mother of the deceased, who has stated that the accused used to demand a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- from his daughter and the said fact was told to her by her nephew Omendra and she had narrated the same to her husband. That she, her husband and her two sons resided just above the house of her daughter and she does not know how Lakshmi expired. That her husband had filed the complaint after Lakshmi had expired. 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. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when her nephew Omendra had gone to bring Lakshmi to her parental house, she does not know what conversation had taken place. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when her nephew Omendra had gone to bring Lakshmi to her parental house, she does not know what conversation had taken place. That they resided at Viramgam for about one month after her husband had lost his job at Kadi and her husband would go for labor work of painting with the accused No.1. That in her statement before the police she has not stated that the accused demanded for a motorcycle and the accused were physically assaulting Lakshmi as they had not given the motorcycle and Rs 50,000/- and in their presence the accused had kicked Lakshmi. That the final rites of Lakshmi were performed at her matrimonial home at Nuneta village and she did not remain present in the final rites. That she did not inform the police how Lakshmi had expired and she does not know how she had expired. 9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Jijavrao Shaligram Patil examined at Exhibit 34 who had recorded the statement of Guddidevi wife of Rajvirsinh Shrijandelsinh, Bharatsinh Shrijandelsinh, Gomtidevi wife of Bharatsinh Shrijandelsing at Bhaisaroli in Madhya Pradesh during the investigation of Viramgam Town Police Station I-C.R.No.30 of 2009. 9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Ghanshyamdan Lalsinh at Exhibit 35 and the witness was working as a PSO at Viramgam Town Police Station when Accident Death No.14 of 2009 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. was registered and the further investigation was sent to the Dy.S.P., Viramgam. 9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 11 Dhanjibhai Nathabhai Parmar and the witness was working as ASI Viramgam Town Police Station on 12-06-2009 and he had registered the offence under Section 306, 498-A and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowery Prohibition Act. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the incident had occurred on 08-06- 2009 and the complaint was registered on 12-06-2009 and the Accident Death No.14 of 2009 was registered on 8-06-2009. 9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12 Bhupendra Chandidan Gadhi at Exhibit 42 and the witness was working as the Dy.S.P., Viramgam and he has investigated the Accident Death No.14 of 2009. 9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 12 Bhupendra Chandidan Gadhi at Exhibit 42 and the witness was working as the Dy.S.P., Viramgam and he has investigated the Accident Death No.14 of 2009. During the investigation, he had recorded the complaint of the complainant Rajvirsinh on 12-06-2009 and the offence was registered. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had recorded the statements of Niruben Manharbhai, Kanubhai Karsanbhai, Vinodbhai Bhainalbhai, Kailashbhai Vinodbhai, Vasant Bhainalbhai and Ranjan Kanubhai and none of the witnesses had stated that on the previous night, the accused had any quarrel with the parents of the deceased. Witness Niruben Manharbhai had stated that as deceased Lakshmiben was pregnant, the accused No.1 did not want her to go with her parents and when the accused No.1 had gone outside of his house, the deceased had hanged herself. Kanubhai Karsanbhai had also stated the same facts and he had also stated that the accused No.1 and his wife were residing peacefully and they never had any quarrel between them. Witness Vinodbhai Bhailalbhai has stated that the parents of Lakshmiben were residing at Lakshmiben's house for about one month and he has not heard any quarrel between the accused No.1 and Lakshmiben. The same facts were stated by Kailashben Vinodbhai and Ranjanben Kanubhai. The witness has also admitted that after registering of Accident Death No. 14 of 2009 till the FIR was registered, no evidence about the offence was found. 9.10 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 13 Babubhai Kanubhai Pandor at Exhibit 45 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate forthe accused, the witness has stated that during investigation, no evidence was found that any person had assaulted Lakshmiben with a belt and prior to this incident, no complaint was ever filed by the parents or brother of the deceased Lakshmiben against the accused. During investigation, it was also not found that the accused No.1 had physically assaulted the deceased and that she required any treatment. 11 On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution on record, the incident has occurred on 08-6-2009 and the complaint has been filed on 12-6-2009, but the complainant has not given any reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR. 11 On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution on record, the incident has occurred on 08-6-2009 and the complaint has been filed on 12-6-2009, but the complainant has not given any reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR. As per the complainant, on 7-6-2009, he and his wife were at the place of the deceased Lakshmiben and the deceased was seven months pregnant and the accused No.1 kicked her on her stomach, but there is no evidence of any ill-treatment or physical assault by the accused No.1 on deceased Lakshmiben. It is pertinent to note that the complainant Rajvirsinh Brijendelsingh Rajput- Prosecution Witness No. 6 and Guddidevi wife of Rajvirsinh Brijendelsinh - Prosecution Witnesss No. 8 have both not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and Prosecution Witness No. 8-Guddidevi wife of Rajvirsinh, who is the mother of the deceased has stated that she does not know how the deceased had expired. It has also emerged on record that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were residing separately from the deceased and her husband and as far as the demand for dowry is concerned, there is no evidence as - Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Guddidevi wife of Rajvirsinh the mother of the deceased, has stated that her nephew Omendrasinh Bharatsinh Rajput had told her that the accused were demanding the amount and she had demanding the dowry and she had told her husband about the same. Prosecution Witness No. 5 Ravirsinh Brijendelsinh Rajput has not stated that the accused had directly demanded for any dowry from him and in the evidence of the Investigation Officer, it has come on record that there was no evidence of any cognizable offence during the investigation of Accident Death No. 14 of 2009. 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. 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. 13. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 2, Ahmedabad (Rural), Viramgam, District: Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2009 on 26.02.2010, is hereby confirmed. 14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.