JUDGMENT : R.P.DHOLARIA, J. 1.The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.5.2005 rendered by learned Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.140 of 2001. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant lodged the complaint before Palitana Town Police Station stating the fact that his daughter named Rasilaben was married with Prakashbhai Laljibhai who is son of accused Nos.1 and 2 prior to four years from the date of incident. It is alleged that Rasilaben was subjected to cruelty by respondents accused on petty matters and as the cruelty subjected by respondents accused was beyond her control, she has committed suicide on 20.10.1990 by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her on fire. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as complaint of the complainant Exh.15, Yadi to Executive Magistrate for recording dying declaration Exh.21, inquest panchnama Exh.30, panchnama Exh.39, P.M.Report Exh.41 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongfully acquitted the accused though ample evidence is available on record. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Havewalla, learned Advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Havewalla further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B.Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Havewalla, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution case, deceased Rasilaben was staying along with her in-laws and husband and all of them were uttering words which ought not to have been spoken and constantly taunting and harassing her, due to which, the deceased had committed suicide on 20.10.1990 by setting herself on fire. 8.1 In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses who are near relatives i.e. father, mother and brother of the deceased. PW 1 – father of deceased Rasilaben has deposed that Rasilaben was married with respondent Prakah who was residing at the relevant time at Palitana for about four years prior to the incident and they had two sons out of the said wedlock. PW 1 – father of deceased Rasilaben has deposed that Rasilaben was married with respondent Prakah who was residing at the relevant time at Palitana for about four years prior to the incident and they had two sons out of the said wedlock. He further deposed that all the respondents in aid and abetement of one another used to harass the deceased for trivial matters and constantly taunting her and uttering words which were not to be spoken, due to which, the deceased had committed suicide and hence, he lodged the complaint. In his cross examination, the witness admitted that at the time of marriage of his nephew Bharat, deceased Rasilaben and respondent No.1 came to his house and they requested to reside along with him and hence, he gave consent, due to which his daughter and son-in-law were residing with him for about two years. He deposed that at that time, his wife and other respondents were visiting his place. He also admitted that he had no idea that the deceased caught accidental fire while preparing tea. He also admitted that when the incident took place, his son-in-law i.e. respondent No.1 had engaged himself as diamond cutter. PW 2 Godavariben whose version is also in similar line to that of the version given by her husband. She has also admitted in the cross examination that respondent No.1 i.e. husband of Rasilaben was residing separately at the time of accident and for about two years, they were lastly residing along with them. 8.2 The prosecution has also brought on record the dying declaration Exh.37 recorded by the Senior Police Sub Inspector in the presence of the Medical Officer on 20.10.1990 wherein the deceased stated that today around at 3.00 O’clock, her husband was outside the room and while preparing tea, at that time, stove stopped burning, due to which, she accidentally caught fire. The panchnama of scene of offence Exh.33 discloses the place of incident as Hatkeshwar Mandir, Palitana. The panchnama of scene of offence Exh.33 discloses the place of incident as Hatkeshwar Mandir, Palitana. 8.3 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clear that the marriage span of the deceased along with respondent No.4 is for about 4 to 5 years, during which period, two children have born and as the respondent as well as deceased Rasilaben were facing financial crunch, due to which, they requested the complainant i.e. father of deceased Rasilaben who have allowed them to stay initially along with them and thereafter the deceased as well as respondent No.1 were staying separately at Palitana i.e. at the parental village of the deceased and not at the matrimonial home. Indisputably, as per the prosecution version, except the husband, none of the in-laws were residing with the deceased for about two years prior to the incident. In view of this nature of evidence, allegations levelled against in-laws i.e. other respondents except the husband are not at all substantiated even, taking into consideration the depositions of the complainant as well as witnesses, i.e. father and mother of the deceased. While taking into consideration the dying declaration recorded by the Senior Police Sub Inspector in the presence of the Medical Officer, it is clear that the deceased caught fire due to accident while preparing tea. Therefore also, the evidence on record also becomes irrelevant. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, 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. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.