JUDGMENT : G.B. SHAH, J. 1. Present appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘the Code’ for brevity) has been directed against judgment and order dated 31.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1996 whereby, the learned trial Judge was pleased to acquit the respondents herein-original accused from the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Mahesh B. Bariya, learned advocates for the respondents. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 25.06.2014 passed by this Court, the present appeal, qua respondent No. 2-original accused No. 2-Manubhai Chhotabhai Valand has been abated. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that marriage of deceased-Gayatriben and respondent No. 3-original accused No. 3-Sureshbhai Manubhai Valang was solemnized prior to eleven months of the incident in question. It is the case of the prosecution that nature of the respondent No. 1-Sumitraben, mother-in-law of the deceased, was not good. She used to harass the deceased on one count or the other. Even she had taken away the amount received by the deceased as a mark of blessings while marriage from the deceased. She used to assign much household works to the deceased. Further she used to give residue meal to eat to deceased. It is further the case of the prosecution that after the death of the father of the deceased and returning from her parental home, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also started harassing the deceased. Before one month of the incident, the deceased had visited her parental home to collect Rs. 3,000/- as demanded by the respondents-original accused. Thus, the respondents, in aid and abetment of each other used to harass and beat the deceased. When it became unbearable, the committed tried to commit suicide by setting herself ablaze by pouring kerosene on 20.07.1995 and ultimately, succumbed to the burn injuries. Accordingly, the accused were alleged to have committed the offence as above for which, complaint had been lodged against them. 4. In support of the case, the prosecution recorded statements of witnesses and collected several documentary evidence and after having found sufficient evidence and material against the accused, they came to be charge-sheeted for the alleged offence. 5. Accordingly, the accused were alleged to have committed the offence as above for which, complaint had been lodged against them. 4. In support of the case, the prosecution recorded statements of witnesses and collected several documentary evidence and after having found sufficient evidence and material against the accused, they came to be charge-sheeted for the alleged offence. 5. As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Matar committed the same to the Sessions Court at Nadiad. The learned trial Judge framed Charge against the accused for the alleged offence. The Charge was read over to the respondents-original accused to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the charge against the respondents-original accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 7. On submission of closing pursis, the Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code were recorded. The accused denied involvement in the crime. After hearing both the sides and on appreciation of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, the accused came to be acquitted. 8. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the prosecution has examined in all 09 witnesses, however, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the said witnesses and thereby, the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused by leading legal, reliable and impeachable evidence, is contrary to the evidence available on record. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of complainant-Madhuben Ambalal, Exh.15, who has clearly deposed regarding ill-treatment to the deceased by the respondents-accused and demand of Rs. 3,000/-. He further submitted that learned trial Judge ought to have considered the fact that the marriage span of the deceased and the respondent No. 3 was only of 11 months and the deceased has committed suicide in such a short span at the matrimonial home of the deceased. 3,000/-. He further submitted that learned trial Judge ought to have considered the fact that the marriage span of the deceased and the respondent No. 3 was only of 11 months and the deceased has committed suicide in such a short span at the matrimonial home of the deceased. Moreover, he submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the fact that though the deceased had committed suicide on 20.07.1995, the complainant was informed one day after i.e. on 22.07.1995 and the said conduct of the respondents-accused substantiates the allegations made in the complaint. He further submitted that Dr. Paresh Ravishankar Trivedi, whose deposition is at Exh.12, has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and has also issued the Certificate as to burn injuries, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of this witness. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Judge has not believed their evidence and has eventually, acquitted the respondents-accused. Last but not the least, he submitted that the present appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice. 9. Per contra, Mr. Bariya, learned advocate for the respondents-original accused, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence which is forthcoming on the record and the reasons recorded for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. He further submitted that there are glaring and major contradictions and material improvements without any explanation in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the respondents have rightly been acquitted by the learned trial Court. He further submitted that this being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the learned trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. Eventually, he submitted that the present appeal may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the above-referred submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and in light of the same, I have also perused the record and proceedings related to the case on hand including the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.1998 passed in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1996. 10. I have considered the above-referred submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and in light of the same, I have also perused the record and proceedings related to the case on hand including the impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.1998 passed in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1996. It is the fact that after 11 months of the marriage of the deceased with respondent No. 3-Suresh Manubhai Valand, the unfortunate incident had occurred in which the deceased had committed suicide by setting her ablaze by pouring kerosene on herself on 20.07.1995 at about 11 p.m. It has come on record that she was immediately shifted to the hospital of Dr. Abhijit R. Gupta after the incident. The deposition of Dr. Gupta is recorded vide Exh.10. The deposition of Dr. Paresh Ravishankar Trivedi, is recorded vide Exh.12. Referring to the complaint, Exh.16 given by complainant-Madhuben Ambalal, the main allegation is against the respondent No. 1, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, to the effect that nature of respondent No. 1 was not good and she used to give cruel treatment to the deceased. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 had also taken away the amount received by the deceased as a mark of blessings while marriage from the relatives. In her deposition at Exh.15, she has supported the averments made by her in the complaint, Exh.16. It is important to note that in the cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that within 2-4 months of the marriage, the respondent No. 3-husband of the deceased, had started living separately in a rented premises situated nearby the house of his parents. She has further admitted that the shop of respondent No. 3-husband of the deceased was separate then the shop of respondent No. 2-father-in-law of the deceased, which was situated at a far distance to the shop of the respondent No. 2. She has further admitted that prior to the marriage, the respondent No. 3-husband of the deceased, was doing business with his father and after the marriage, he had started a separate shop. It has also come on record that after the death of the husband of the complainant, deceased and the respondent No. 3 both had gone to the house of the complainant and resided there for about a month and returned only after completion of all the after death ceremonies. It has also come on record that after the death of the husband of the complainant, deceased and the respondent No. 3 both had gone to the house of the complainant and resided there for about a month and returned only after completion of all the after death ceremonies. On a specific query put to the complainant, she has stated that the expenses for the after death ceremonies had been incurred by her only, however, the respondent No. 3 had remained present and given full cooperation. It has also come on record through examination of doctors that there was no outside injuries on the body of the deceased and thus, the theory of beating to the deceased is, as such, not believable. Moreover, no evidence of an independent witness has come on the record. All these aspects have been dealt with by the learned trial Judge at length. Thus, on going through the impugned judgment and order carefully, dealing with all the aspects of the matter, this Court is in agreement with the conclusion arrived at and findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and with a view not to burden the Court record any more, the Court stays its hands. 11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible then also appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 . In the instant case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 11.1 In the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 280 , Supreme Court has held as under: “The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. Are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal.” 11.2 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan alias Jardar Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Courts interference in such appeal is somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. 11.3 Thus, considering the above evidence forthcoming on record and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal having found without any substance, fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1996, is confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Registry to send back the record and proceedings, if called for, to the trial Court forthwith after following due procedure for the same. Appeal dismissed.