JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1) (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 154 of 2002 (New) (Old Sessions Case No. 40 of 1998). The said case was registered against the present respondents original accused for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The brief facts as they emerge from the record are as under:- 2.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the marriage of deceased Miraben took place with the accused No. 1 prior to one year from the date of incident and thereafter, the deceased was residing with the accused No. 1 in joint family i.e. other respondents - accused. The deceased was subjected to the cruelty as she was not liked to her husband i.e. accused No. 1. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was repeatedly beaten by the respondents and she was not given sufficient food and thereby she was subjected to cruelty by the respondents. Therefore, the deceased left house and went to her parental home on 4.12.1988 and thereafter, settlement took place and she was sent to her matrimonial home. In spite of the same, harassment was continued and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous drug. As per the complaint, which was lodged by the D.Y. S.P., on 15.1.1989, he received worthy through wireless that Kaparada Police Station registered one case for the offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein it is stated that the deceased was living with her in-laws and therefore, said Dy. S.P. visited the village and drawn panchnama and also inquest panchnama and sent yadi for P.M. to Dharampur Medical Officer. Initially the complaint was lodged against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498(1) and 114 of the IPC, but subsequently, Section 306 of IPC was added. Thereafter, after investigation and after recording the statements of witnesses, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and then the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge then framed charge against the respondents. 3. Thereafter, after investigation and after recording the statements of witnesses, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and then the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge then framed charge against the respondents. 3. In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses and produced several documentary evidence. 4. Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 5. 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 by giving benefit of doubt. 6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.12.2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Valsad in the aforesaid Sessions Case, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 7. Learned APP Mrs. Punani appearing for the State has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that there was both physical and mental torture caused by the respondents - accused to the deceased at her matrimonial place and therefore, deceased could commit suicide on account of physical and mental torture. She also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have relied upon the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution which clearly reflect that there were sufficient circumstances in which a lady like deceased can commit a suicide. She submitted that the witness namely Sarpanch Mohanbhai who is an independent witness, examined at Exhibit 14, clearly supported the version of the prosecution and his evidence clearly shows that due to instigation, provocation and abetment on the part of the accused, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, it can be said that the accused meted out cruelty upon the deceased and therefore, the deceased committed suicide and died. She drew attention to the evidence of father of the deceased Akhubhai examined at Exhibit 21 and submitted that this witness clearly stated that the deceased was beaten by her husband and in-laws and they caused metal cruelty upon the deceased. She drew attention to the evidence of father of the deceased Akhubhai examined at Exhibit 21 and submitted that this witness clearly stated that the deceased was beaten by her husband and in-laws and they caused metal cruelty upon the deceased. This witness also stated that the deceased talked about the harassment caused by the accused in the past. Learned APP further submitted from the evidence of Dr. Nareshchandra, it is also established that the deceased was died due to consumption of poison. Therefore, on account of cruelty meted out by the accused upon the deceased, the deceased committed suicide. She submitted that from the other evidence of witnesses, the prosecution has clearly established the case against the accused. She therefore, submitted that accused had provoked, instigated the deceased to commit such act by abetting each other. She also submitted that the accused did not properly explain in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code about such incident. She therefore, prayed to allow this appeal and the accused are required to be convicted and sentenced for the alleged offence. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Bhavna Acharya submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. She submitted that the lower court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them. She also submitted that the deceased was not subjected to any mental or physical torture by the accused and the deceased consumed poisonous on her own and therefore, learned trial Judge after considering the evidence in detail, rightly acquitted the accused. She, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and order may not be interfered with and it may be confirmed. 9. I have heard learned APP for the appellant - State and learned advocate for the respondents. I have gone through the papers produced in the case. Looking to the charge framed against the respondent accused for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A as well as 114 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are discrepancies in the evidence produced by the prosecution and there is no evidence which shows that the accused meted out cruelty upon the deceased and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused. The Sarpanch of the village examined by the prosecution, who turned hostile. There are discrepancies in the evidence produced by the prosecution and there is no evidence which shows that the accused meted out cruelty upon the deceased and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused. The Sarpanch of the village examined by the prosecution, who turned hostile. The evidence of the Doctor shows that the death would be possible due to consumption of poison. The witnesses are interested witnesses, but they have not proved the case by any cogent evidence that the accused meted out cruelty upon the accused and therefore, the deceased died. 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 498-A 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. 10. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 755 , 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 characterised 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. 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." 11. 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 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 12. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah And Anr. v. State, Rep. by the Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu ( 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 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 emphasised that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyse 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 ]" 13. 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 respondents - 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. 14. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Valsad, in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1998 (New) (Old Sessions Case No. 40 of 2004), acquitting the respondents - accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Appeal dismissed.