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 Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Morbi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2007 on 07.09.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter to as the IPC). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the rank and file 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 was the mother-in-law of deceased Gitaben the wife of Shambhubhai Merubhai Indariya and Gitaben was married to Shambhubhai about six years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they had a daughter, Vandana aged two years and the son Sumit, aged one year. As per the complaint filed by the complainant Shamjibhai Shardulbhai Thakor on 14-05-2007, the accused used to mentally and physically harass his daughter Gita and on 14-05-2007 Shambhubhai, the son-in-law of the complainant, telephoned him and told him to come immediately to the government hospital at Morbi as his daughter Gita was injured. He went to Morbi on the next morning and found that his daughter Gita and her son Sumit aged one year had fallen from Padapul (bridge) at Morbi and had expired. The complainant Shamjibhai Shardulbhai Thakor filed the complaint before the Morbi City Police Station under Sections 498-A, 306 and 594 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 which was registered at Morbi City Police Station I-C.R.No. 83 of 2007. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and had 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, Morbi and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessios Case No. 41 of 2007. 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.1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exh. 2, 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 has filed the following oral evidence as well as documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE S. No Prosecution Witness No. Name of the Prosecution Witness 1 5 Sabdinbhai Ibrahimbhai 2 7 Babubhai Chakubhai 3 8 Ushaben Devjibhai 4 12 Shamjibhai Sardulbhai 5 15 Dr.Narendrabhai Laxmanbhai Patel 6 19 Labhuben Samjibhai 7 20 Vinodbhai Sardulbhai 8 21 Dr. Rajendra Shantilal Pandya 9 24 Chandrakant Bhavanbhai Patel DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES S. No Exhs Particulars 1 6 Inquest Panchnama 2 16 Yadi to perform Post Morterm 3 17 Postmorterm Form 4 18 Post Report Report 5 22 Yadi of postmorterm 6 23 Postmorterm report of Sumit 7 25 Investigating Order 8 26 Complaint 9 27 Yadi of registeration of crime 10 28 Panchnama of place of offence 11 29 Arrest Panchnama 2.5 That after the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh: 30 and the further statement of the accused was recorded wherein the accused denied all the evidence and stated that a false case has been filed against her. 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant - State. Though served, none appears on behalf of the respondent 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. Pranav Dhagat 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. 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. 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. 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.. 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 appre- ciation, 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 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. - 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 at Sabhuddin Ibrahimbhai at Exh.5, Prosecution Witness No. 2 Babubhai Chakubhai at Exh.7 and Prosecution Witness No. 3 Ushaben Devjibhai at Exh. 8. All the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the Inquest Panchnama, which is produced at Exh:6, whereby the Inquest panchnma on the dead body of the deceased was drawn in the postmorterm room of Government Hospital in Morbi and a small purse was found from the blouse of deceased Gitaben with a chit and seized by the Investigative Officer. The witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Shyamjibhai Sardulbhai at Exh.12 and the witness is the complainant and father of deceased Gitaben. The witness has stated that at the time of the incident, he was at his residence at Halvad and his son-in-law telephoned him and informed him that Gita was taken to the government hospital for treatment. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Shyamjibhai Sardulbhai at Exh.12 and the witness is the complainant and father of deceased Gitaben. The witness has stated that at the time of the incident, he was at his residence at Halvad and his son-in-law telephoned him and informed him that Gita was taken to the government hospital for treatment. That he went to the hospital and saw the dead body of his daughter and his son-in-law informed him that Gita had fallen from the Padapul (bridge) with her son. But later on, he came to know that the accused was harassing his daughter and abusing her and Gita was married seven to eight years before the incident. Besides this, he does not know any other thing and has stated that the police had showed him one chit and he has identified the handwriting of his daughter on the chit. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is uneducated and cannot read and write and the chit was shown to him by the Police. His daughter had studied upto Class 5 and he used to help her with her homework. He has not given any letters of his daughter to the Police and he had affixed his thumb impression below the complaint. The chit was shown to him in the Court and when he had filed the complaint, he was not shown the chit by the Police. He, his wife, Kanchan and the daughter-in-law of his younger brother, had decided to file the complaint and he does not know what was written in the complaint. In the complaint he has stated that for five years, his daughter was not harassed in any manner and eight to ten days prior to the incident, he had gone to visit his daughter and was at her place till the afternoon, but she did not mention anything about any harassment given to her. That his daughter had stayed for one and a half month at his place and thereafter she had gone back to her matrimonial home and he had not gone to visit her as she was residing happily. That his daughter had stayed for one and a half month at his place and thereafter she had gone back to her matrimonial home and he had not gone to visit her as she was residing happily. His daughter had never told him about any ill-treatment given to her and he does not know why his daughter had a verbal altercation with the accused and he did not inquire from the neighbours about the same. That, even at the time of the cremation of his daughter, no altercation had taken place with the in-laws of his daughter. 9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Dr. Narendrabhai Laxmanbhai Patel at Exh.15 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was working at Civil Hospital, Morbi on 14-05- 2007 and has performed the post-mortem of the deceased Gitaben Shambhubhai Indariya. The witness has produced the post-mortem note of Gitaben Shambhubhai Indriya at Exh.18 and as per column No. 17, there was an abrasion of size 6 cm x 3 cm over middle side of upper part of left thigh and lower part of buttock and the injury was antemortem in nature. The cause of death was shock due to internal hemorrhage and injury to vital organ like liver and the injury could be sustained when a person falls from a height. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he could not opine whether the death was a suicidal death and could not say whether the deceased had accidentally fallen or had herself jumped into the water. 9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 6 Labhuben W/o Samjibhai at Exh.19 and the witness is the mother of deceased Gitaben and she has stated that on the date of the incident, her son-in-law had telephoned to inform them that her daughter had committed suicide and her husband had left in the night and she had gone in the morning. Her daughter had fallen down from Padapul (bridge) with her son and both of them were taken to Rajkot. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she had gone to Morbi on the next day and she came to know that her daughter along with the child had fallen from Padapul (bridge). Her daughter had fallen down from Padapul (bridge) with her son and both of them were taken to Rajkot. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she had gone to Morbi on the next day and she came to know that her daughter along with the child had fallen from Padapul (bridge). She would visit her daughter on occasions and in her presence no unpleasant incident has ever occurred. Her daughter had never come to her paternal home and had never told them anything about any ill-treatment to her. Her daughter and son-in-law were residing separately from the accused. 9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Vinodbhai, Shardulbhai at Exh.20 and the witness is the paternal uncle of the deceased Gitaben. The witness has stated that Gita had jumped from the Padapul (bridge) with her son and had expired and a chit was found from her purse, which was shown to him in the Police Station. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was residing separately from his elder brother and he had gone to Gita's house on one occasion. He was welcomed well and Gita was happy in her matrimonial home and she would not tell them anything and no incident has occurred between the accused and Gita in his presence. He does not know how Gita has expired and he was shown the purse and chit in the police station. 9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Dr. Rajendra Shantilal Pandya at Exh.21 and the witness was working as the Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Polvan, District: Narmada on 14th May 2007 when the dead body of Sumit Sambhubhai Indariya was brought for post-mortem. The witness has produced the post-mortem note at Exh.23 and as per column No. 17, there was an abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm size on left anterior abdomen and multiple small abrasions on right lower limb. The injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was shock due to fracture of femur bone and head injury. The witness has stated that, if the child falls along with his mother from a height, the injuries found on the dead body were possible. The injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of death was shock due to fracture of femur bone and head injury. The witness has stated that, if the child falls along with his mother from a height, the injuries found on the dead body were possible. 9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Chandrakantbhai Bhavanbhai Patel at Exh.24, and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not got the opinion of the handwriting expert regarding the chit and he had not seized any natural writings of the deceased and had not sent the chit and the natural writings of the deceased to the handwriting expert. When the deceased and minor child had fallen from Padapul (bridge) and had committed suicide, the accused was not present, and the deceased was married for about ten years prior to the incident and during that, time no complaint was filed against the accused. During investigation, it was found that the deceased was not ill-treated by the accused. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused was mentally and physically harassing the deceased Gitaben and due to the ill-treatment she has committed suicide along with her minor child but in the entire evidence, it has come on record that the accused was residing separately from the deceased and her husband and there is no iota of evidence that immediately preceding the incident, there was any ill-treatment or incitement by the accused. The complainant Shamjibai Sardulbhai Thakor has admitted that no untoward incident has ever occurred in his presence between the accused and his deceased daughter and his daughter had never come with any complaints about the accused to her paternal home. The complainant Shamjibai Sardulbhai Thakor has admitted that no untoward incident has ever occurred in his presence between the accused and his deceased daughter and his daughter had never come with any complaints about the accused to her paternal home. Prosecution Witness No. 6 Labhuben Shamjibai - the mother of the deceased and Prosecution Witness No. 7 Vinodbhai Sardulbhai have also not stated about any ill-treatment given by the accused to the deceased and there is no iota of evidence as to the exact time when the deceased jumped from Padapul (bridge) along with the child and there is no evidence of any independent witnesses that on the date of the incident there was any altercation between the accused and the deceased and hence the deceased had committed suicide. As far as the recovery of the chit from the purse which was found on the person of deceased Gitaben during the inquest panchnama is concerned, the panch witnesses Prosecution Witness No. 1 Shabuddinbhai Ibrahimbhai, Prosecution Witness No. 2 Babubhai Chakubhai and Prosecution Witness No. 3 Ushaben Devejibhai have not supported the case of the prosecution and the Investigating Officer - Prosecution witness No.9 Chandrakantbhai Bhavanbhai Patel has categorically stated that he has not recovered the natural writings of deceased Gitaben and has not sent the chit for the opinion of the handwriting expert. Moreover, Prosecution Witness No. Shamjibhai Shardulbhai the father of the deceased has stated that deceased Gitaben had studied upto Class 5 and he had not given any natural writings of Gitaben to the Investigating Officer during investigation. 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 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 Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.5, Morbi in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2007 on 07.09.2009 is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.