(1.) The present appeal, under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 18/07/2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court No. 3, Porbandar in Sessions Case No. 18 of 1998, whereby the respondents herein original accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 306, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC').
(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23/07/1997 at about 18:30 hours the respondent No. 4 herein original accused No. 4 was since teasing the victim, she asked her not to do so and hence, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein original accused Nos. 1 to 3 got excited and abused the deceased victim. Moreover, the respondents accused, residing in the neighbourhood of the victim, were used to quarrel with the victim and thereby, harassed the victim and when it became unbearable, the victim committed suicide by setting herself ablaze by pouring kerosene. Thus, the accused committed the offence alleged against them, for which, a complaint came to be lodged against them.
(3.) Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant State took us to the Dying Declaration of the deceased and submitted that in view of the same, the learned trial Judge ought to have imposed conviction, at least for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, however, the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error of law and evidence by not imposing conviction. She submitted that in view of the evidence on record, the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the respondents accused beyond reasonable doubt and this is a fit case for conviction, however, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused and thereby, has committed a grave error. Eventually, she requested that this Court may interfere in the appeal and convict the accused, in the interest of justice.