- (1.)THE State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 1.6.1994 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.110 of 1992. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 498 -A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased Vasantben had given a complaint before Palitana Town Police Station on 31.10.1991 that she is residing with her husband, mother -in -law and father -in -law at Gheti Village. She had married accused no.1 two years before the incident and that there was no issue from the wedlock. On 31.10.1991, when she was doing household work in view of ensuing Diwali festival, her mother -in -law started abusing her and her father -in -law as well as sister -in -law have also given filthy abuses to her. She stated that she was often beaten by her in -laws. Therefore, she poured kerosene on herself on that day and set herself ablaze. It is also stated that she was beaten by the accused persons on the day of the incident. With such allegations, the complaint was given against the accused persons.
2.1 Thereafter, investigation was carried out and charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.2 In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined in several witnesses. The prosecution has also produced documentary evidence on record.

2.3 Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them.

2.4 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.6.1994 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.110 of 1992, the appellant -State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

(3.)MS .Monali Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of acquittal is against law and evidence on record. She submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not appreciating the deposition of the witnesses. She submitted that there were minor discrepancies in dying declaration and FIR, however, learned trial Judge has erred in acquitting the accused in view of such discrepancies. She also submitted that dying declaration cannot be said to be tutored one. She also submitted that even father of the victim has stated in his deposition that whenever his daughter was coming to matrimonial house she used to convey that the accused are harassing her and she was subjected to cruelty. She submitted that in view of cumulative effect of all such incidents, the deceased committed suicide. She also submitted that the learned Judge has erred in not properly construing and interpreting the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has erred in acquitting the accused. She, therefore, submitted that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be reversed.
On the other hand, Mr.P.M.Dave submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He submitted that the lower court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them. He submitted that there are discrepancies in the dying declaration and therefore the accused are rightly acquitted by the learned trial Judge. He also submitted that in view of latest decisions of the Apex Court, when two views are possible, this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the lower Court unless it is found to be perverse. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment may not be interfered with and it may be confirmed.