JUDGMENT : M. K. Thakker, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.284 of 2008, whereby the accused came to be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 306 , 498-A, and 114 of the IPC and Section 31 of the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT . 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.09.2007, the deceased has lodged a complaint while she was admitted in the Civil Hospital due to burn injuries, which were caused at her father's house when she attempted to commit suicide. It is alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 is the mother-in- law and accused No.2 is the husband. She was staying at her parents' house from the date of Raksha Bandhan with her father, namely, Munasinh Babusinh Bhadoriya, her mother - Parvatiben and her sister - Jyoti. 2.1. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused No.2 before 12 years from the date of the incident and initially, she stayed with her in-laws at Maghani Nagar. Out of the wedlock, she had two kids one son and one daughter. It is alleged by the deceased that the husband and the mother-in-law used to torture her on the cause of preparation the meals and used to assault her. If the deceased raised any objection, she was sent to her parental house. She came to her parents' house twice and when she asked her husband to take her at her matrimonial house, the husband said that only after getting permission from his mother she would be taken back. 2.2. On the day of the incident, in the morning at around 10 o'clock, when she was at the house with her sister - Jyoti. The husband - Rajesh came to the house and a quarrel took place between the husband and wife. After the husband left, at around 3:00 o'clock, she committed suicide. She was taken to the hospital by friend of the her brother, where the FIR came to be lodged, being I-C.R. No.147 of 2007 at Meghani Nagar Police Station. On the day, she died, the offence under Section 306 was added. After the husband left, at around 3:00 o'clock, she committed suicide. She was taken to the hospital by friend of the her brother, where the FIR came to be lodged, being I-C.R. No.147 of 2007 at Meghani Nagar Police Station. On the day, she died, the offence under Section 306 was added. On setting the criminal law in motion, a panchnama including the place of offence as well as the statements of 9 witnesses were taken by the Investigating OfÏcer and after gathering sufÏcient material against the respondents, the charge-sheet came to be filed before the Competent Court. As the case was triable by the learned Court of Sessions, it was committed and the plea was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, 9 witnesses were examined and 14 documentary evidence were produced. 2.3 On conclusion of the evidence, the statement under Section 313 came to be recorded, wherein accused No.2 has stated that after the marriage was solemnized with the deceased, the deceased was quarreling on the ground of staying separately. In order to see that the deceased remained happy, he had shifted separately from his parents. However, as the husband used to give money to his parents to meet their routine expenses, the deceased had objected to the same and had tried to commit suicide by consuming the pills. She was taken to Shardaben Hospital and after she recovered, at her instance, she was sent to her parents' house as the festival of Raksha Bandhan was nearby. Thereafter, neither the husband nor any in-laws went to the deceased's house. However, only to implicate them in a false case, the FIR came to be filed, wherein the husband and mother-in-law were implicated as the accused. The learned court, after considering the evidence adduced as well as on examining the evidence of the oral witnesses, had acquitted the respondents - accused of the charge, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in the present appeal. 3. Heard learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the State and the learned advocate Ms. Priyanshi Trivedi for learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondents. 4. Learned APP Mr. 3. Heard learned APP Mr. Utkarsh Sharma for the State and the learned advocate Ms. Priyanshi Trivedi for learned advocate Mr. Shah for the respondents. 4. Learned APP Mr. Sharma submits that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the respondents - accused through the evidence of the mother, father, brother and sister, who in their testimony stated that due to harassment and torture at the ends of the respondents - accused, she committed suicide. Learned APP Mr. Sharma submits that two months prior to the date of the incident, she had consumed pills and after providing treatment, she was sent to her parents' house. Learned APP Mr. Sharma further submits that as per the evidence of the deceased's father, she was assaulted by the husband prior to two years and for that, an FIR was also lodged. Learned APP Mr. Sharma submits that the learned Court has given much weightage to the cross-examination, where the father admitted that the FIR is not part of the record, nor was any documentary evidence placed on record. 4.1 Learned APP Mr. Sharma further submits that the prosecution has also established the case beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, who is an independent person and recorded the dying declaration. It is submitted by learned APP Mr. Sharma that the deceased herself stated before the learned Magistrate that due to the quarrel between the husband and the deceased - wife, she committed suicide. Learned APP Mr. Sharma submits that this evidence was further corroborated by the evidence of the FIR, which was lodged by the deceased herself, wherein also the identical allegations were also made against the respondents - accused. However, instead of examining the said material in proper spirit, the learned Court has given the accused the benefit of doubt by giving much weightage to minor discrepancies. 4.2 Learned APP Mr. Sharma submits that in that background, the appeal is required to be allowed and the accused persons are required to be convicted of the charges alleged. 5. As against the same, the learned advocate Ms. Trivedi for the respondents submits that the cause of the quarrel as well as the cause of torture was not established by the prosecution by adducing the cogent evidence. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms. 5. As against the same, the learned advocate Ms. Trivedi for the respondents submits that the cause of the quarrel as well as the cause of torture was not established by the prosecution by adducing the cogent evidence. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Trivedi that as the deceased was staying at her parents' house at the time of the incident, there is a lack of a proximate link between the alleged harassment and the commission of the suicide. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms. Trivedi that as the marriage span was of 12 years and they had two kids and due to the deceased's continuous demand to live separately and not to support the old-aged parents of the husband, quarrels used to take place and for that, she was staying with her parents’ house. The learned advocate Ms. Trivedi submitted that, undisputedly, through the evidence of the relatives of the deceased, it emerges that the prior incident, which was alleged to have been taken place before two months, all the treatment expenses were bared by the in-laws and after she recovered, on her insistance, she was sent to her parents' house. The learned advocate Ms. Trivedi further submits that the accused did not visit the house of the deceased and as there was a quarrel between the two sisters, she committed suicide. False allegations were made, which were disproved during the course of trial and therefore, learned Court is justifying in acquitting the respondents – accused of the charges and no interference is required. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the evidence, which is part of the record and proceedings, it emerges that respondent No.1 is the mother-in-law and respondent No.2 is the husband of the deceased. It is alleged that on the day of the incident, the husband came to the parents' house of the deceased and there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage span of the deceased was 12 years, she had two kids and prior to the date of the incident, she was at her parents' house from the date of Raksha Bandhan. The fact is also not in dispute that the deceased was staying separately from the in-laws before coming to her parents' house. The fact is also not in dispute that the deceased was staying separately from the in-laws before coming to her parents' house. 6.1 It is also not in dispute that during the testimony of all witnesses, no exact cause for the quarrel was proven by the prosecution. A bare allegation was made by the deceased in the FIR that the in-laws used to torture her on the ground of preparation the meal. It is an undisputed fact that the said ground is not stated in the dying declaration, which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate. The only cause mentioned in the dying declaration is that for miscellaneous things, a quarrel took place between the husband and the deceased - wife. However, what the cause was remained unproven until the end of the trial. One more crucial aspect which is required to be noted is that though from the evidence of the father, it comes that the earlier FIR was lodged for assault met on the deceased by the husband. However, immediately during the cross-examination, the father admitted that that part has not been disclosed in his police statement, nor were any details with regard to the said FIR stated during the course of the trial. In the absence of any material, the learned Court held that continuous torture and harassment have not been proved by the prosecution. In addition to that, during the evidence of the father, he stated in his chief examination that on the day of the incident, when the husband came to the house at 10:00 o’clock, he assaulted the deceased. However, that fact is missing in the dying declaration as well as in the complaint, which was lodged by the deceased herself. It emerges from the statement recorded under Section 313 that the deceased wanted to stay separately from in-laws and as the deceased did not like the support which was given by the husband to his old-aged parents, quarrels took place frequently. 6.2 Before holding an accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court must reach to the conclusion as to whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased had left the victim for no other alternative option but to put an end to her life. The degree of torture should be beyond tolerance. 6.2 Before holding an accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC, the Court must reach to the conclusion as to whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased had left the victim for no other alternative option but to put an end to her life. The degree of torture should be beyond tolerance. In an allegation of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of a direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide. Merely an allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of the occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 is not sustainable. 6.3 In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the same offence, the person who is stated to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played on an active role by an act of instigation or by doing a 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 accused be convicted before the accused the convict under the offence of 306 of the IPC, if one would examine the dying declaration which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate and compared it with the police statement, it emerges that the dying declaration is in a very brief manner. However, though the degree of burns was around 100% and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day, on narration of relationship with her brother and sisters were mentioned in the police statement in detailed. During the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, it was admitted by the witness that the deceased was feeling difÏcult to state the narration of the offence due to her burn injuries. However, in the police statement, the deceased has narrated the same history in three detailed pages. That also creates doubt as to whether the complaint was filed by the deceased herself or by any other person. Except for the evidence of interested witnesses, the prosecution did not examine any other independent witness to establish the harassment and torture at the ends of the in-laws. That also creates doubt as to whether the complaint was filed by the deceased herself or by any other person. Except for the evidence of interested witnesses, the prosecution did not examine any other independent witness to establish the harassment and torture at the ends of the in-laws. In the absence of the same, the learned Court is justifying in holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 6.4 In addition to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court while exercising the power under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. is also required to be referred, which is reproduced hereinbelow. “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. 6.5 Having considered overall circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed.