JUDGMENT By way of the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant State has challenged the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 29-8-1992 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Sessions Case No. 136 of 1991 whereby the original accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted accused No. 2 of the charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code also. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that deceased Bhanuben, was daughter- in-law of accused No. 1 and wife of accused No. 2. Accused No. 3 is the wife of accused No. 5 who is brother of accused No. 2. Accused No. 4 is sister-in-law of deceased Bhanuben, it is stated in the complaint that after marriage, deceased Bhanuben could not bear a child for a long time. Therefore, the accused persons were harassing her mentally and physically. They were taunting her for the said reason. They were not giving her enough food, clothes. They did not allow deceased Bhanuben to go to her maternal house. This led her to take extreme step of committing suicide on 5-7-1991. 2.1 On the basis of the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation charge-sheet under Sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was filed in the lower Court. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, it was committed to the Court of Session. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons. While framing the charges against the accused persons, the trial Court found prima facie evidence against accused No. 2 in respect of dowry death and therefore charge of offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused No. 2. 2.2 The charges were read over and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution produced evidence against the accused persons. Further statements of the accused persons were recorded. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidences produced on record, acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. Hence the present appeal at the instance of the State. 3. Prosecution produced evidence against the accused persons. Further statements of the accused persons were recorded. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidences produced on record, acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order. Hence the present appeal at the instance of the State. 3. The appeal is admitted qua respondent No. 2 Ashokbhai Haribhai Thakkar and appeal is not admitted qua respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. 4. Learned APP Mr. Pujari for the appellant State has submitted in order to prove the case against the accused the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. Labhuben Jagdishbhai, P.W. 1 at Exh. 10. 2. Amrutbhai Sendhabhai, P.W. 2 at Exh. 12. 3. Jayantibhai Hemchandbhai, P.W. 3 at Exh. 15. 4. Shantilal Jayantilal, P.W. 4, at Exh. 21. 5. Dr. Amrutlal Patel, P.W. 5 at Exh. 23. 6. Pushpaben Vrujlal, P.W. 6 at Exh. 25. 7. Amrutlal Ramjibhai Chaudhari, P.W. 7 at Exh. 27. 4.1 The prosecution has also relied on the following documentary evidences : 1. Complaint at Exh. 11. 2. Inquest panchnama at Exh. 13. 3. Panchnama of the scene of incident at Exh. 14. 4. Letter of FSL at Exh. 18. 5. Post-mortem report at Exh. 24. 4.2 Learned APP has further submitted that the trial Court has committed error in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that P.W. 1 is elder sister of the deceased. P.W. 3 is the father of the deceased. P.W. 4 is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 6 is sister of father of the deceased. He has contended that in spite of the fact that when deceased Bhanuben committed suicide, all the said persons were there to save her life, the trial Court disbelieved their evidence. He further submitted that even though there are ample evidences produced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime, the trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. In that view of the matter, the order of the trial Court acquitting the accused is required to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents original accused has supported the order of the trial Court and submitted that the trial Court has after considering all the evidences produced on record, passed the order acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents original accused has supported the order of the trial Court and submitted that the trial Court has after considering all the evidences produced on record, passed the order acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the same is not required to be interfered. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 : ( AIR 2006 SC 3366 ), the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal, in para 54 (para 59 of AIR) of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under : “in any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against aquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellants power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below. 6.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 111) the Apex Court laid down the following principles; “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge : (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. (3) Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 6.2 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 6.3 Even in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 61) the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 (para 15 of AIR) of the said decision, the Court has observed as under : 16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with. 6.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3075 ) and in Girja Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of M.P., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589 : ( AIR 2007 SC 3106 ). Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. 6.5 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh, reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in paras 10 and 11 : (2009 AIR SCW 2119, para 8) has held as under : “10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye-witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence. 6.6 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah v. State, Rep. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence. 6.6 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah v. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under : 4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges levelled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate Court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the Court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal (2004) 5 SCC 573 ) : ( AIR 2004 SC 4520 ). 6.7 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 6.7 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein it is held as under : “......This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi v. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice. 6.8 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary. 7. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have appreciated, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has observed that no evidence is produced to prove the case regarding demand of dowry against accused No. 2. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the case of demand of money by accused No. 2 for the construction of house. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that accused persons have taunted deceased Bhanuben for not bearing a child after three years of marriage and thereby they have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has rightly given its finding that benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Looking to the evidence on record, it will not be appropriate for this Court to reverse the judgment and order of the trial Court. 8. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. 8. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. 9. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charge levelled against him are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. No interference is warranted with the judgment and order of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.