JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1. Though rule is served, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2 at Anand in Sessions Case No.125 of 2006 dated 30.09.2009, whereby the respondent - accused was acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC, the State has filed the present appeal. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with one Khushiram Ramgaya Rawat, who is residing at village Balua, Taluka Haidargadh, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh and at the time of the incident, was staying at Room No.7, Mandal-ni-Chawl, nearby Bhaikaka Statue at Vidyanagar. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased has filed the FIR on 27.08.2005, it is stated that she was staying with her husband, father-in-law and daughter aged 2 years along with her mother-in-law, for the last 3 months and at the time of incident, she was conceiving 2 months pregnancy. It is stated by the deceased in the FIR that after the marriage, she was staying at Uttar Pradesh and for the last 3 months, had stayed at Vidyanagar with her husband. It is alleged by the deceased that her mother-in-law, namely, Subadevi used to quarrel with the deceased and asking the deceased to leave the place and due to the harassment at the ends of the mother-in-law, she attempted to commit suicide on 26.08.2005 by pouring kerosene and igniting the matchstick. The husband had taken her to the Krishna Hospital. With the aforesaid allegations, the FIR was lodged at Vidyanagar Police Station, being CR-1 No. 104 of 2005 under Section 498-A of the IPC. On 04.09.2005, the deceased died during the treatment and therefore, the addition of Section 306 of the IPC was made by the investigating officer. The investigating officer, after recording the statement as well as drawing the Panchnama, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate. As the case is triable by the learned Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. to the learned Sessions Court. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Fast Track Court. The learned Court has framed the charge and recorded the plea of the accused, wherein she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As the case is triable by the learned Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. to the learned Sessions Court. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Fast Track Court. The learned Court has framed the charge and recorded the plea of the accused, wherein she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and also prod13093uced 25 documentary evidences. On conclusion of the evidence and on filing the closing pursis, further statement under Section 313 came to be recorded, wherein the accused has pleaded innocence. The learned Court, after considering the evidence placed on record, has concluded the trial by giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquitted her of the charges, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the State. 5. Learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma submits that the learned Court has committed an error by discarding the evidence, more particularly the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, which was recorded below Exh.28 as well as the dying declaration, which is produced below Exh.30, wherein the deceased herself has described the incident and stated that due to the harassment on the part of the mother-in-law, she committed suicide. Learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma submits that the said evidence was further corroborated with the statement of the deceased herself before the police, wherein the deceased has also reiterated the same, which is mentioned in the dying declaration. Learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma submits that both the documents were supported by the evidence of the witness, namely, Lallu Rawat, who is examined below Exh.38 and Babu Rawat examined below Exh.39, who are the brothers of the deceased. However, the learned Court has committed an error in giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused. Learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma submits that the learned Court has given more weightage to the endorsement, which was not found on the dying declaration, of the doctor with regard to the fitness certificate at the time of recording the dying declaration. However, as per the statement made by the learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, when the doctor had recorded that the patient is in a conscious position, there was no need of giving any fitness certificate. Learned APP Mr. However, as per the statement made by the learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, when the doctor had recorded that the patient is in a conscious position, there was no need of giving any fitness certificate. Learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma submits that minor discrepancies were given more weightage by the learned Court while granting the acquittal. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the respondent-accused is required to be convicted for the charges alleged. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma as well as on perusing the record and proceedings, it emerges from the record that as per the charges, which were framed against the mother-in-law, who is respondent No.2, it is alleged that on 26.08.2005, at 11 o’clock in the night, the deceased had committed suicide by pouring kerosene and she died on 04.09.2005 at 7 o’clock. Due to the instigation on the part of the respondent, the offense was alleged under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC. To prove the case against the respondent, the prosecution has examined witnesses in the Panch witnesses of the spot Panchnama as well as two neighbours and all witnesses were declared hostile. Therefore, instead of discussing the said witnesses, the material witnesses, which are examined by the prosecution in the nature of the Executive Magistrate, the police officer and 2 brothers, this Court deems it fit to discuss the evidence of the above witnesses. 6.1 As per the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, which was examined below Exh.28, it is coming out from the record that on 27.08.2005, he received one yadi at 3.35 hours and he reached to the hospital. The yadi, which is produced below Exh.29, suggests that during the preparation of the meal, the patient had received the burning injury and her marriage span was stated to be 4 years and she was having 2 months pregnancy. In the yadi, the endorsement was made by the doctor that the patient is conscious. On reaching to the hospital, she met with the doctor, namely, Dr. Bindra and enquired with regard to the consciousness of the patient. It is informed by the witness to the doctor that with regard to the consciousness, the endorsement has to be made and the doctor had shown his readiness for making an endorsement. On reaching to the hospital, she met with the doctor, namely, Dr. Bindra and enquired with regard to the consciousness of the patient. It is informed by the witness to the doctor that with regard to the consciousness, the endorsement has to be made and the doctor had shown his readiness for making an endorsement. The dying declaration, which was produced below Exh.30, recorded by this witness, suggests that the present respondent used to make a quarrel with the deceased for no reason. She used to beat her and the deceased had exonerated the husband as well as the father-in-law. At the time of making the dying declaration, there were no specific allegations with regard to the harassment or any incident stated by the deceased in her dying declaration. In addition to that, on referring to the dying declaration, it emerges that though, it is recorded that the patient is conscious and has given the statement, no signature of the doctor is found in the said dying declaration, neither the thumb impression of the left hand been attested by any witness. In addition to that, the evidence of the witness, namely, Ramsingh Kuderbhai Patel, who was the PSI and had recorded the statement, which is in the nature of an FIR of deceased, if one would refer, then it emerges that as per the worthy received from the hospital, the cause of burn injuries mentioned of preparing of a meal. It came from the cross-examination of the said witness that before recording the statement, no opinion was sought from the concerned doctor. The prosecution had tried to corroborate this evidence with the evidence of the relatives, who were examined below Exh.38, namely, Lallu Rawat, who is the brother of the deceased. This witness, in his chief-examination, has deposed that the sister used to make a complaint with regard to the harassment, which was meted out at the ends of the respondent and the mother-in-law used to say that whatever meal was provided by the parents, she would have that meal and except that, nothing would be given by the in-laws. It also comes from evidence of this witness that for the last 3 months, she used to stay with the father-in-law and the husband at Vidyanagar and after some time, the mother-in-law also came to stay there and used to quarrel with her. It also comes from evidence of this witness that for the last 3 months, she used to stay with the father-in-law and the husband at Vidyanagar and after some time, the mother-in-law also came to stay there and used to quarrel with her. It is deposed by this witness during the chief-examination that the assault was made by a wooden log and she was thrown out of the house by the mother-in-law by snatching her hair. During the cross-examination of this witness, it was admitted by this witness that her marriage span was of 7 years and with regard to the assault, which was stated in his chief-examination, during the police statement, those aspects were not mentioned. Similarly, in the evidence of the other witness, wherein also with regard to the assault, though it is stated in the chief-examination, but in the cross-examination, it is admitted not to have been disclosed to police. In that scenario, this Court is of the view that this would be nothing but exaggeration to see that the respondent is convicted. 6.2 Overall consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution suggests that there was no positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide. There should be a direct act or an active act which led the deceased to commit suicide and no other option and that act may be intended to push the deceased to commit such a final act. It emerges from the evidence that there was no live link or any proximate between the act of the deceased and the accused. In the absence of a live link, one cannot say that the accused had instigated or intentionally aided the commission of the suicide. The word instigate means, as per the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act and a person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to act by any means or language, direct or indirect. 6.3 This Court is of the view that the prosecution fails to establish the ingredients of instigation, as the instigation has to be with mens rea. 6.3 This Court is of the view that the prosecution fails to establish the ingredients of instigation, as the instigation has to be with mens rea. In absence of any positive act or any specific allegations with regard to the incident, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order of acquittal with regard to guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court while exercising the power under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mallappa v. State of Karnataka , reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held para No.42, which is as under; “42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive — inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court. 6.4 Considering the overall circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Court below. Hence, the present appeal does not deserve to be entertained further. 7. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed.