ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. - (1.)THE challenge in this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to the judgment and order dated 10.11.1994, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No.275 of 1993, whereby the respondents, original accused, have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A, 306, read with Section 114, of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)IT may be noted that respondent No.1 ­ original accused, Navinchandra Chhaganlal Chandarana, husband of the deceased, has died about 17 years ago of a heart attack in the Civil Hospital, Rajkot. This fact has emerged from a communication dated 28.01.2013, received from the District Court, Rajkot, on the basis of the report and statements recorded by the police pursuant to fresh notice issued by this Court on 20.12.2012. Vide order dated 29.01.2013, this Court has treated the appeal qua respondent No.1 as having abated. The appeal, therefore, now survives only with respect to respondent No.2, Prabhaben Hasmukhbhai Nadha.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, Pravinchandra Amrutlal (PW2), filed a complaint on 01.04.1993, at Ex.14, to the effect that his sister, deceased Narmadaben, was married to respondent No.1 ­ Navinchandra Chhaganlal Chandarana, about 9 to 10 years before the incident that took place on 31.03.1993, and had three sons out of the said wedlock. The father of the complainant had died about 10 years ago and his mother lives with him. The complainant further states that his sister Narmadaben used to visit his house frequently, after her marriage. About two and half years before the incident, the deceased had come to his house and had told him that her husband, respondentaccused No.1, beats and tortures her. She further told him that respondent No.1 had bad habits and had maintained an illicit relationship with respondent No.2. Due to this, there were quarrels in the house. The complainant is stated to have told the deceased that everything would be all right. After about one year, the deceased started a business of selling sarees, which were supplied to her by the complainant. The complainant would take sarees on credit from merchants and the deceased would sell them and deposit the money with the complainant, after about a month or so, and take another lot of sarees to sell. It is stated in the complaint that on 15.02.1993, about one and a half months prior to the incident, the deceased and her husband, had come to the house of the complainant along with their children, on the occasion of the wedding of his niece. Respondent No.1 had left on 17.02.1993, whereas his sister had stayed upto 22.02.1993, on which day, she went back with her children. Later during that visit, Narmadaben is stated to have told the complainant that her husband is still harassing and beating her and maintaining an illicit relationship with respondent No.2. Due to this, he is beating and torturing her. It is further stated that on 31.03.1993, when the complainant was sitting in his shop, one Hakubha from the office of Ravechi Transport came to call him, stating that there was a telephone call from Rajkot. The complainant went to the office of Ravechi Transport, where one Pravinsinh Sodha told him that the telephone call from Rajkot was that his sister Narmada had died. The complainant left for Rajkot with his uncle Ranchhodbhai Muljibhai at about 7:00 pm, and reached there at about 10:30 pm. They went to the house of the mother of respondent No.1, at Lakshmi Wadi. The mother of respondent No.1 told the complainant that his sister had died due to burns. After some time, the complainant went to the house of Natubhai, brother of respondent No.1, where he stayed the night. The next day, that is, on 01.04.1993, the complainant took charge of the dead body of the deceased and saw that her entire body had got burnt. Later, upon making inquiries, the complainant learnt that his sister Narmadaben had died on 31.03.1993. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was driven to death due to the harassment caused to her by the illicit relationship of respondent No.1 with respondent No.2.

(3.)UPON registration of the complaint, the investigative machinery was set into motion. The statements of witnesses were recorded and an inquest was held on the dead body of the deceased, which was then sent for autopsy. The inquest Panchnama and the Panchnama of the scene of offence were prepared. At the end of the investigation, as the prosecution gathered sufficient incriminating evidence against the respondents, they came to be chargesheeted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court"), where it was registered as Sessions Case No.275 of 1993. The Trial Court framed the Charge against the accused at Ex.1, which was read over and explained to them. The respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the case was put to Trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and produced about 14 documents, in evidence. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Trial Court explained to the accused, the statements appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defence was the accused was that of denial. After appreciating and evaluating the evidence on record, the Trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of the respondents, concluding that there was insufficient material on record to hold the respondents guilty of the charges levelled against them. Hence, the present appeal.