Judgment K.J. Thaker, J. 1. This appeal is of 1994. Since last 21 years, the office has not, been able to serve the accused. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1994 rendered by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1993. The said case was registered against the present respondent original accused for the offence under Sections 498Aand 306, of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was married to Miniben since last 2½ years. However, since last three months, he was not giving any money to run the household and had sold off the golden ornaments namely ring, bracelet, etc. It is further alleged that despite Mini's repeated requests/demands to bring back those ornaments, accused had not done so, on the contrary, he was demanding Rs. 25,000 cash and golden ornaments and, therefore, was torturing and ill-treating her to the extent that she would be driven to commit suicide. It is further alleged that because of the ill-treatment, on 6.6.1993 at about 17.00 hours at the residential staff quarters of Cellulose Products (I) Limited, Pungam, Ankleshwar, Miniben locked herself in the house and poured kerosene on her body and had ignited herself and committed suicide. It is alleged that, thus, the accused drove Mini to terminate her life. 1.1 The prosecution was launched on the complaint filed by PSI, Shri S.I. Patel of Ankleshwar Police Station. It is the case of the prosecution that Ankleshwar Police Station had registered an accidental death at Sr. No. 18/93 and the further inquiry was handed over by PSO, Baldevbhai Hirabhai to PSI, Shri S.I. Patel on 6.6.1993 at about 20.00 hours. On taking over charge of the matter, PSI, Shri Patel had made the inquest Panchnama of deceased Miniben and also the Panchnama of the scene of offence and was making further headway in the inquiry. Meanwhile, Dy. S.P. Ankleshwar had called for the papers of the matter to take over the charge of the same by himself and ongoing through the same, it was learnt that one Gopkumar Pillai, residing at Cellulose Products (I) Ltd. Staff Quarters, Ankleshwar had informed the death of Miniben as he was married to her. At the relevant time, he was serving with the Cellulose Products (I) Limited, Ankleshwar. At the relevant time, he was serving with the Cellulose Products (I) Limited, Ankleshwar. It is the case of the prosecution that police could gather sufficient evidence against the husband, Gopkumar Pillai and, therefore, a complaint is filed against him. A formal complaint lodged against Gopkumar Pillai by PSI, Shri Patel was taken by Shri B.K. Gamati, P.I., Ankleshwar. 1.2 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 Session. Thereafter, charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 1.3 In order to bring home the charges against the accused several witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has also led documentary evidence in support of its case. 1.4 After filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against him. 1.5 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned judgment, acquitted the respondent-accused by giving benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.3.1994 rendered by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1993, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 2. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the State, has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that there was both physical and mental torture to the victim at her matrimonial place and there is sufficient evidence which goes to show that there were enough circumstances in which a lady could commit suicide on account of physical and mental torture. She also submitted that the Court below has erred in discarding the prosecution witness without assigning good and cogent reasons. She submitted that the Trial Court ought to have seen that Dr. L.S. Rathod was examined Exh. 6 and in his evidence, he has stated that he had found 3rd degree burns on face, neck, chest, abdomen, leg, etc. of the body. She submitted that the Trial Court ought to have seen that Dr. L.S. Rathod was examined Exh. 6 and in his evidence, he has stated that he had found 3rd degree burns on face, neck, chest, abdomen, leg, etc. of the body. It is also in his evidence that the lady might have died because of the shock as a result of several intensive burns of 90%. She also submitted that Somabhai Ishwarbhai Patel, P.W. 2 examined at Exh. 8 has stated in his evidence that Miniben had been married to the accused before 2 1/2 years and accused Gopkumar Pillai was working with Cellulose Products (I) Ltd. It is also in his evidence that accused was not getting the salary since last 3 months. He had sold off the golden rings, bracelet of his wire and Mini was repeatedly telling him to get the same back, however, the accused was not complying with the requests and on the contrary was harassing and torturing her. It is also in his evidence that on 6.6.1993 at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening Mini poured kerosene over her body and burnt herself. 3. Ms. Shah also submitted that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence of Anilkumar Nayar, P.W. 5, who has produced letter Exh. 17 written by the deceased to her sister and brother-in-law. In this letter, the deceased wrote about that the accused was quarrelling with her daily and he was also torturing her. It is also written that she had no interest in living. She also submitted that the Trial Court ought to have seen that the accused had received the salary from the company since last three months, even then the accused had not given any money to his wife Miniben. She also submitted that even evidence of Venu Purshottam, Exh. 13, also supports the case of the prosecution. She also submitted that the accused was harassing and torturing his wife Miniben and, therefore, she has committed suicide. She further submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate and consider that there is sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence on record for convicting the accused and the Court below ought to have convicted the accused. She submitted that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused has committed offence under Sections 306 and 498A, of the IPC. She submitted that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused has committed offence under Sections 306 and 498A, of the IPC. In view of above, she submitted that this appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be reversed by convicting the accused. 4. I have heard learned APP for the appellant-State and perused the record. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. Looking to the charge framed against the respondent accused for the offence under Sections306 and 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While passing the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge has given categorical finding that nowhere in the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses, it has come on record that Mini was subjected to harassment with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demands for property or valuable securities or her having failed or any of her relatives to meet with such demands. Though Venu Purshottam, Exh. 13, mentions in his evidence that on her visit after marriage to the parental house Mini complained that accused is demanding money and is creating problems there for. However, admission is elucidated out that when the said talk took place on the first occasion, only three of them i.e. he, Mini and accused were present and no demand of money was made by the accused then. However, there is an improvisation in the same breath and witness states that on the second occasion Mini asked for 5 Pawni of Gold and Rs. 5,000 cash and that time Mini and all the family members were present. This evidence on this count is not sufficient to implicate the accused with the demand of money and his having harassed Mini. It is possible and probable that Mini of her own accord might have asked the gold and Rs. 5,000 cash. Accused may not have asked for it who knows whether the version propounded by Exh. 13 is true or false. No corroborative evidence about the demand of the money on second occasion has come on record and it appears to be a shady evidence and is not inspiring any confidence. It is also found by the Trial Court that Anilkumar, Exh. 15 is the brother-in-law of deceased has nowhere in his evidence stated about the harassment to the sister-in-law. Exh. No corroborative evidence about the demand of the money on second occasion has come on record and it appears to be a shady evidence and is not inspiring any confidence. It is also found by the Trial Court that Anilkumar, Exh. 15 is the brother-in-law of deceased has nowhere in his evidence stated about the harassment to the sister-in-law. Exh. 17 is a letter written by Mini to her sister Shobha. It, at some stage, mentions that her husband is quarrelling with her daily and is also torturing her. In what context this feeling is expressed is not explained too in the letter and, therefore, the same cannot be imputed with the demand of money or the ornaments for the dowry by the accused. A quarrel may take place between a husband and wife and harassment also may take place, however, degree of harassment would be varying and play an important role in determining the offence under this section. Harassment should be of such magnitude that it would drive the person to commit suicide. A reasonable nexus between the cruelty and suicide must be established in order to make good the offence of cruelty. It should be noted at this stage that prosecution case rests solely on the evidence of witnesses who are near relatives of deceased Mini and they are hostile towards the accused. A corroborative piece of evidence from some independent source is always required while determining the offence of such a nature. In the absence of any corroborative evidence not inspiring confidence and a bare mention of some words in Exh. 17 did not attract the ingredients of the words harassment. Nexus between harassment and leading to the termination of life is not established. Therefore, in my view, learned Judge has rightly observed that from the evidence on record it could not be proved that an offence under Section 498A is committed and ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC also could not be established. It cannot be said that because of the respondent's provocation, instigation or abetment the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, learned Judge has rightly observed that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. It cannot be said that because of the respondent's provocation, instigation or abetment the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, learned Judge has rightly observed that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in III (2007) SLT 368 : (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In Para 16 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. 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. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., reported in VII (2007) SLT 809 : 111 (2007) CCR 336 (SC) : 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of M.P., reported in VIII (2007) SLT 19 : III (2007) DLT (Cri.) 1004 (SC) : III (2007) CCR 328 (SC) : 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 7. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State, Rep. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 7. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, I (2003) CCR 293 (SC) : I (2013) SLT 103 : 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 by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled 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 R1 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 and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]." 8. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court acquitting the accused. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]." 8. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondent-accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned decision as it cannot be said to be either perverse or not borne out from the facts of the case. The State has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view in this matter. Hence, this appeal sans merit and is required to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.1994 rendered by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 168 of 1993, acquitting the respondent-accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the Trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Appeal Dismissed.