JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. The appeal is 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, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 75/2007 on 19.01.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 306 , 498(A), 323, 504 and 114 of IPC. 1.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 1 - Chandrakantbhai Rungnathbhai Chatvani had expired on 31.12.2017 and the respondent no. 2 – Ranjanben Chandrakantbhai Chatvani expired on 17.02.2017. The appeal qua the respondent no. 1 and 2 was abated by an order of this Court dated 03.03.2025. 1.2 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 nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Komalben, the accused no. 3 is the husband and the accused nos. 4 and 5 are the sisters- in-law of deceased Komalben who was married to the accused no. 3 about 11 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock Komalben and the accused no. 3 - Ketanbhai had two daughters namely Disha and Princey and ten days prior to 06.04.2007, Komalben had come to her brothers house with the younger daughter - Princey. On 06.04.2007 at around 00.45 hours Komalben sprinkled kerosene on herself at her brother‘s house and set herself ablaze. She was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment and she filed a complaint under sections 498A, 323, 114 of the IPC, which was registered at Bhaktinagar Police Station I C.R. No. 112/2007. The said Komalben - wife of Ketanbhai Chatvani expired during treatment and Section 306 of IPC was added in the FIR. She was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment and she filed a complaint under sections 498A, 323, 114 of the IPC, which was registered at Bhaktinagar Police Station I C.R. No. 112/2007. The said Komalben - wife of Ketanbhai Chatvani expired during treatment and Section 306 of IPC was added in the FIR. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot 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 Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 75/2007. 2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 22 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 23 to 27, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh. 1 1 Bhupatbhai Pravinbhai 31 2 2 Dr. Kishorebhai Limbabhai Ramani 38 3 3 Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai 43 4 4 Sonalben Rajeshbhai Sedani 45 5 5 Dhirajlal Chhaganbhai 47 6 6 Parulben Bhaveshbhai 51 7 7 Dr. Premjibhai Bhurabhai Nariya 52 8 8 Dr. Jitendra Jivrambhai Joshi 55 9 9 Jagdish Dayalal Rajyaguru 58 10 10 Jayendrasinhji Dhirubha Chauhan 63 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. Kishorebhai Limbabhai Ramani 38 3 3 Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai 43 4 4 Sonalben Rajeshbhai Sedani 45 5 5 Dhirajlal Chhaganbhai 47 6 6 Parulben Bhaveshbhai 51 7 7 Dr. Premjibhai Bhurabhai Nariya 52 8 8 Dr. Jitendra Jivrambhai Joshi 55 9 9 Jagdish Dayalal Rajyaguru 58 10 10 Jayendrasinhji Dhirubha Chauhan 63 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Report of PSO 64 2 Forwarding letter of complaint 65 3 Complaint 66 4 Yadi 49 5 Panchnama of place of offence 32 6 Depute Order 59 7 Note 60 8 Yadi 62 9 Form 61 10 Inquest Panchnama 33 11 Cause of death certificate 40 12 Arrest note 68/70 13 Muddamaal sent to FSL 69 14 Medical Cetificate of Komalben 53 15 Receipt of muddamaal 71 16 Dying declaration 48 17 Report 72 18 Postmortem Note 39 19 Regarding postmortem to be done by Panel doctors 41 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, 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 APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment 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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the respondent nos. 3 to 5. 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. Jirga Jhaveri has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences. 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 regarding the scope of interference 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 Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 , 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. 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". 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". 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. 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. 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 17th 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 principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Bhupatbhai Pravinbhai at Exh. 31 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 32. The witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution and he has stated that the place of offence was shown by witness Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhaibhai and the place was a residential house and burnt clothes were found at that place. Two matchsticks and one matchbox were seized by the police and a plastic jar half filled with kerosene was also seized. The witness has stated that on 24.04.2007, he was called to the Civil Hospital and the inquest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 33 was drawn in his presence. The witness has also identified the muddamaal before the learned Trial Court. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was known to Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai about seven years prior to the incident and deceased Komalben was married 11 years prior to the incident. 33 was drawn in his presence. The witness has also identified the muddamaal before the learned Trial Court. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he was known to Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai about seven years prior to the incident and deceased Komalben was married 11 years prior to the incident. The place where the incident occurred was the residence of the mother of deceased Komalben and the place of offence was the open space but the jar of kerosene was found from the kitchen. No kerosene was found from the open place and no burnt clothes were found from the kitchen. In the kitchen, there was no goods which were spread out and no kerosene was found on the floor. The jar of kerosene was standing and it was half full. That on 06.04.2007, when he got the news that Komalben was burnt, he had gone to her house between 00.30 to 00.45 hours and Komalben was at home in a burnt condition. That at that time, her brother Rajeshbhai, uncle Dilipbhai and Vinubhai and others took her to the hospital and till she expired, he had seen her. She was admitted at around 02.00 am in the hospital. The panchnamas were being written by the police. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Dr. Kishorebhai Limbabhai Ramani at Exh. 38 and the witness is the Medical Officer who has performed the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Komalben - wife of Ketanbhai Chatvani. The witness has produced the post-mortem note at Exh. 39 and has stated that the dead body of deceased Komalben Ketanbhai Chatwani was brought for post- mortem on 24.04.2007 and the post-mortem was conducted by him and panel doctor - Dr. C. C. Kothari. There were one degree to two degree burns present on the body and 7% burns on the head and neck, 18% on both upper limbs, 33% on the anterior and posterior part trunk, and 25% on both lower limbs anterior and lateral aspect. There were signs of inflammation and line of redness present, singing of hair and greenish yellowish patches of slough was present over the burn areas. There were no external injuries except the burns and no fracture was seen over the body and all the injuries were antemortem. There were signs of inflammation and line of redness present, singing of hair and greenish yellowish patches of slough was present over the burn areas. There were no external injuries except the burns and no fracture was seen over the body and all the injuries were antemortem. The final cause of death, as per their opinion, was cardio- respiratory failure due to septicemia following burns to the body. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the cause of death was septicemia and if one portion of the body is infected, it would be septic but as the whole body was infected, it was septicemia. Septicemia is generally due to unhygienic conditions and in the post-mortem note, the origin of the septicemia was not shown. That if bacteria comes into the breath, septicemia could follow and even if the relatives of the patient come with unhygienic clothes or smoke a beedi, septicemia could take place. From the injuries on the dead body of the deceased, it could be said that the injuries were accidental and if a person was having mental issues, they would have suicidal tendencies. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai at Exh. 43 and the witness is the brother of deceased Komalben who has stated that the accused were mentally and physically harassing her sister and the accused no. 3 used to consume liquor and physically assault his sister. On 05.04.2007, the accused no. 3 had assaulted his sister and he was called to their house but he does not know the reason for their quarrel and he brought his sister to his house. That his sister committed suicide due to the ill-treatment by the accused. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the deceased was at his house from 15 days prior to the incident and he had taken his sister to Dr. Hansaliya’s Hospital situated on Vidyanagar Main Road to give her electric shocks. That his sister had mental issues and the marital life of his sister was 12 to 13 years. That during this period of 12 to 13 years, his sister Komal did not file any complaint against the accused and the daughters of his sister and the accused no. 3 were residing with the accused no. That his sister had mental issues and the marital life of his sister was 12 to 13 years. That during this period of 12 to 13 years, his sister Komal did not file any complaint against the accused and the daughters of his sister and the accused no. 3 were residing with the accused no. 3 and studying but he does not know in which school they are studying. The accused no. 4 was married in the year 1998 and she had taken a divorce in the year 2006 and was remarried in the same year. The accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing in A.G Society on Kalawad road, and his sister and the accused no. 3 had taken a house in Vimalnagar since the year 2006 and were residing there since then. Dr. Rangani and Dr. Nagnecha are Psychiatrists and they had treated his sister Komalben and she had studied in the hostel at Jodiya. That after she returned from Jodiya, her behaviour had changed and they had a doubt that she was possessed and they were getting her treated. On the day of the incident, he had gone to his room which was on the first floor and he does not know what had happened downstairs but heard his mother and sister shouting and he woke up and came down and when he came down his sister Komalben and mother were present. There was no kerosene jar in the open space and no matchbox at that place and he had put water on his sister and doused the flames. That his sister was screaming and she was fully burnt and when she reached the hospital she was unconscious and she regained consciousness only on the next day. That he had informed the doctor that his sister was burnt but he does not know the reason why she was burnt. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Sonalben Rajeshbhai Sedani at Exh. 45 and the witness is the sister- in-law of deceased Komalben who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused no. 5 was residing in the staff quarters with her husband and the accused no. 4 was married and residing at Visavadar. 45 and the witness is the sister- in-law of deceased Komalben who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the accused no. 5 was residing in the staff quarters with her husband and the accused no. 4 was married and residing at Visavadar. The incident had occurred at their house and Komalben was at their house from 15 days prior to the incident. The accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing at A.G. Society, Kalawad Road for many years and after the incident Komalben was unconscious and she had regained consciousness on the next day. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Dhirajlal Chhaganbhai at Exh. 47 and the witness is the Executive Magistrate who has recorded the dying declaration of deceased Komalben which is produced at Exh. 48. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had gone to record this dying declaration at 03.00 am and the dying declaration was recorded on the basis of Janvajog Entry No. 251/2007. As per the Yadi, it was mentioned that Komalben had sustained burn injuries at her paternal house and when he reached the hospital, the doctor had merely told him that Komalben was conscious and she was fully burnt. When he saw Komalben, she was covered with a bed sheet on her and besides Komalben, there were many patients in the ward. 9.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Parulben Bhaveshbhai at Exh. 51 and the witness is the younger sister of deceased Komalben who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that on the day of the incident, her husband had received a phone call that Komalben was burnt and they reached the hospital and found that Komalben was under treatment. 9.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 – Dr. Premjibhai Jivrambhai Joshi at Exh. 52 and the witness has stated that on 06.04.2007, he was on duty at Civil Hospital, Rajkot when Komalben was brought for treatment. She had sustained first to second degree burns on her body and the burns were about 60% and her condition was poor and serious. The medical certificate is produced at Exh. 53. Premjibhai Jivrambhai Joshi at Exh. 52 and the witness has stated that on 06.04.2007, he was on duty at Civil Hospital, Rajkot when Komalben was brought for treatment. She had sustained first to second degree burns on her body and the burns were about 60% and her condition was poor and serious. The medical certificate is produced at Exh. 53. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the police had inquired about the certificate from him on 17.04.2007 and he had given the certificate to them. 9.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 – Dr. Jitendra Jivrambhai Joshi at Exh. 55 and the witness has stated that on 06.04.2007 he was on duty at Civil Hospital, Rajkot when patient Komalben Ketanbhai Chauhan was admitted in the burns ward. The Executive Magistrate had come to record her dying declaration and at that time the patient was fully conscious. The dying declaration was recorded from 03.15 am to 4.00 am and the patient was competent to give the dying declaration. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the endorsement in the dying declaration at Exh. 48 was made after the dying declaration was recorded and in the dying declaration, it is not mentioned that the patient was fully conscious. The patient Komalben was fully burnt and he cannot say whether she had sustained second and third degree burns. 9.8 The prosecution has examined PW9 – Jagdish Dayalal Rajyaguru at Exh. 58 and the witness was working as the PSO, Bhaktinagar Police Station on 24.04.2007. When the message was received and he went to Civil Hospital, Rajkot and drew the inquest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 33. 9.9 The prosecution has examined PW10 – Jayendrasinji Dhirubha Chauhan at Exh. 63 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has stated that Janvajog Entry No. 251/2007 was registered and thereafter, the offence at Bhaktinagar Police Station I – C.R. No. 112/2007 was registered. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the first instance it was mentioned that for some unknown reasons Komalben had sprinkled kerosene on herself and had set herself ablaze. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the first instance it was mentioned that for some unknown reasons Komalben had sprinkled kerosene on herself and had set herself ablaze. The marital life of Komalben was 13 years and she was residing separately from her in-laws. When he reached the hospital at around 02.30 am, the family members of Komalben were present but he did not inquire anything from them and he did not record the statement of Komalben. That he was at the hospital for about one hour but during this time he did not record the statement of Komalben. Komalben was fully burnt and in the complaint produced at Exh. 66, it is not mentioned as to whether Komalben was conscious and there is no endorsement of the doctor regarding the same. That he had not met the doctor and during investigation it was found that the incident had occurred at the paternal home of Komalben and she was at her paternal house for 10 to 15 days prior to the incident. That while the bail application of the accused was being heard before the Sessions Court, he had filed an affidavit and had verified the documents of the mental condition of Komalben regarding treatment by Psychiatrist - Dr. Vijay Nageja, Dr. Chetan D. Hansalia and Dr. Rangani and he had reported to the Sessions Court that deceased Komalben was being treated by these doctors. The accused nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were residing separately from the deceased. That when he reached the hospital, he found that the condition of Komalben was very poor and he was at the hospital for more than one hour. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the case of the prosecution the incident has occurred at the paternal house of deceased Komalben and she was residing at her brother's place for more than 10 to 15 days prior to the incident. After the incident has occurred, she was taken to the hospital by her brother and others and there is nothing on record to show what had actually occurred on the date of the incident. After the incident has occurred, she was taken to the hospital by her brother and others and there is nothing on record to show what had actually occurred on the date of the incident. There is no iota of evidence that the accused were in contact with deceased Komalben anytime immediately prior to the incident and in the entire evidence it has come on record that the marital span of Komalben was about 12 to 13 years and during this entire time she has not filed any complaint against any of the accused. As per the case of the prosecution, the incident has occurred on 06.04.2007 and she was brought to the hospital at 01.38 am and she expired on 24.04.2007. The dying declaration was recorded on 06.04.2007 between 03.15 am to 04.00 am and Janvajog Entry No. 251/2007 was registered and thereafter, the offence was registered at I – C.R. No. 112/2007. It has also come on record that the deceased was taking treatment from many psychiatrists and the matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer -PW10 - Jayendrasinhji Dhirubha Chauhan and the report to that effect was submitted before the learned Sessions Court. PW3 - Rajeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai - the brother of deceased Komalben who took her to hospital has stated that she was unconscious and she had regained consciousness on the next day and from the record of the case, the dying declaration was recorded on the same day between 03.15 am to 04.00 am. There is no medical evidence regarding the condition of Komalben when she was brought to the hospital and she was under treatment from 06.04.2007 to 24.04.2007 and during this time the papers regarding her treatment and the history given by her when she was brought to the hospital at the first instance has not been produced on record. Moreover, in the evidence it has come on record that Komalben’s mother was present when the incident has occurred but the prosecution has not examined her before the learned Trial Court. The mother of Komalben would be the best witness to depose about what had actually happened as she was an eye witness but her evidence has not come on record. The mother of Komalben would be the best witness to depose about what had actually happened as she was an eye witness but her evidence has not come on record. Moreover, as per the evidence of PW1 - Bhupatbhai Praveenbhai, when he reached the house of deceased Komalben immediately after the incident, her brother Rajeshbhai, their uncle Dilipbhai, Vinubhai and others were present but Dilipbhai and Vinubhai have not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, as per the panchnama produced at Exh. 32, the incident had occurred in the entrance of the house which was an area of 6 feet x 10 feet but there was no traces of kerosene at that place. The jar of kerosene was found from the kitchen and the burnt matchsticks as also the matchbox were found from the kitchen. The burnt pieces of clothes were found from the open place and in the kitchen as well as the other rooms, all the items in the house were found intact. PW1 - Bhupatbhai Praveenbhai has stated that there was no kerosene found in the open space and no kerosene was found on the floor of the kitchen also. As per the complaint produced at Exh. 66, Princey - the daughter of the deceased was with the deceased but she has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, on perusal of the complaint produced at Exh. 66, there is no endorsement about the place and time where the complaint has been recorded. There is no iota of evidence of any mental or physical harassment by the accused who were all residing separately and in the entire evidence it has come on record that the accused nos. 1 and 2 were residing separately from the deceased and the accused no. 3, and the accused nos. 4 and 5 were married and staying separately from many years prior to the incident. 11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra) and 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. 11. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra) and Mahendra Awase (supra), the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 75/2007 on 19.01.2012, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.