JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat, under Section 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.6.2004, recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T. Court No.9), Vadodara, in Sessions Case No.1 of 1999. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 9.10.1996 at about 3.30 p.m., complainant-Sandhyaben was at home, at that time, one Deepak-Assistant of Dr. Ashwin Bhammar and servant of doctor Jvalit Hasmukhlal Sheth came to her house and informed that her husband is calling her with TV, Bank Passbook and papers of her house and dispensary and also books of account of doctor to the quarters of Neurosurgeon Institute. By saying so, Deepak took TV from her house and kept it in an auto rickshaw and the complainant after taking her passbook of State Bank of India, Harani Road Branch went to the dispensary of doctor Jvalit Hasmuklal Sheth where her husband had gone for service at 8.00 a.m. When she reached at `the dispensary of Dr. Jvalit Hasmukhlal Sheth, she was kept waiting outside the office of Dr. Jvalit Sheth. Thereafter, she told the nurse on duty that she is wife of Manish and to ask Dr. Jvalit Sheth as to why he was called her and also to let her inside the office. After some time, Dr. Jvalit Sheth came out of the office. Thereafter, the complainant asked whereabouts of her husband Manish Desai. On saying so, Dr. Jvalit Sheth started abusing her and asked where they have kept the account books and other items. She replied that Manish is her husband and without his permission she cannot hand over the papers but Dr. Jvalit Sheth did not permit her to meet Manish and sent her in rickshaw along with Deepak. 3. It is further the case of the prosecution that when she reached home, Dr. Ashwin Bhammar alongwith another doctor Paresh Bhai of Jyoti Medical came behind in a car. Thereafter, upon opening the lock of her house, Dr. Ashwin and another doctor took away all the documents, bank account passbooks from the cupboard and went away at about 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, at about 8.00 p.m., her husband came home in an auto rickshaw. When she inquired with Manish, he told her that Dr. Thereafter, upon opening the lock of her house, Dr. Ashwin and another doctor took away all the documents, bank account passbooks from the cupboard and went away at about 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, at about 8.00 p.m., her husband came home in an auto rickshaw. When she inquired with Manish, he told her that Dr. Jvalit Sheth had betrayed him and has obtained his signature on blank paper and told that he owes Rs.70,000/- from him and from morning Dr. Jvalit has confined him in the office. He further stated that Dr. Jvalit Sheth had threatened him that he would have to rewrite his books of account of black money, failing which, he would kill him or file a police case against him. 4. It is further the case of the prosecution that due to such circumstances, the complainant’s husband was afraid and therefore, the complainant and her husband went to the residence of her brother-in-law Deven @ Sunil Desai residing at Sukhsanti Society for sleeping at night. Her husband narrated this fact to his elder brother. Thereafter, on 10.10.1996 at about 7.30 a.m., her husband Manish got up and the complainant went to her residence at 11, Parvtinagar Society to feed milk to the dog. At that time her husband and parents-in-laws were at home at Sukhshanti Society. At about 8.15 a.m. to 8.30 a.m., she came back to Sukhsanit Society and as her husband was on the upstairs and she went to give him tea and she found that her husband was sleeping on the bed. She tried to woke him up and shook him but she found that his body has became very cold and he did not reply to her and thereafter, she found an injection tube on the wrist of his left hand and blood was oozing out from the hand. She felt that her husband was dead. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 342, 380 read with Section 114 of the IPC, was filed before City Police Station Vadodara. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet which came to be committed to the learned trial Court. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 342, 380 read with Section 114 of the IPC, was filed before City Police Station Vadodara. 5. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet which came to be committed to the learned trial Court. 6 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 8. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has 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. 9. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the 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 the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also submitted by him that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondents for the alleged offences under Sections 306, 342, 380 read with Section 114 of the IPC, which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the impugned judgment as well as record and proceeding of learned trial Court and stated that the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is required to be converted into conviction as such. Mr. Dabhi has further argued that though the wife, brother-in-law and mother of the deceased entirely supported the case of the prosecution and on the previous day, the deceased was confined and he was compelled to return the amount of Rs.70,000/- allegedly misappropriated by the deceased-Manish during the course of his employment with the accused No.1. Though the deceased tried to raise the said amount from the near relatives, however, on failure thereof, he committed suicide and that is the direct result of threatening to return the amount. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, the learned trial Court could have convicted the accused as such. 10. On the other hand, Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned Senior advocate appearing for Parthiv Shah, learned advocate for the respondents argued that the learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence on record and rightly recorded the finding and acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against them. He has further argued that there is no iota of evidence on record to link the accused with the crime and he has also argued that it is emerging out from the evidence on record that the respondents have no mensrea. He has further argued that if this Court may take the entire evidence at its face of value, then nothing reveals from the evidence that the accused had ever intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide as such. He has further argued that if this Court may take the entire evidence at its face of value, then nothing reveals from the evidence that the accused had ever intended to drive the deceased to commit suicide as such. On the contrary though there was long standing relationship as employee and employer, and the respondent had taken due care in all sort of monetary difficulties arose in the life of the deceased including his marriage and for purchasing house and also for running daily affairs of his family. The deceased misappropriated an amount to the extent of Rs.70,000/- and on being noticing the same, the deceased had admitted to such misappropriation and therefore, there was a question of returning the said amount. If any lawful demand to return the money is made then it does not come within the purview of ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC. 11. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. K.B. Anandjiwala, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents-accused. 12. In order to bring home the guilt on the part of the respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW1 Sandhyaben has deposed that she got married with deceased-Manish in the year 1984 and her husband was serving as personal assistant to Dr. Jvalit Sheth. She has further deposed that generally her husband used to attend the duty from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. and on the day prior to the incident on 9.10.1996, her husband reported for duty at about 8.00 a.m. and on the said day, the respondent asked for certain documents from the deceased and even the respondents themselves visited her house and thereafter she herself visited the hospital but she was not allowed to meet her husband. However, at about 8.00 p.m., her husband came at home and informed her that Dr. Jvalit Sheth has threatened to return Rs.70,000/- which the deceased alleged to have misappropriated. Thereafter, the complainant as well as deceased and brother of deceased PW3 Rupesh Chandrakant Sura were consulted and the deceased tried to raise Rs.50,000/- from his brother and they did not give the said amount and due to which on 10.10.1996, he did not report to duty and he stayed at home. Thereafter, he committed suicide by injecting poisonous substance. Thereafter, the complainant as well as deceased and brother of deceased PW3 Rupesh Chandrakant Sura were consulted and the deceased tried to raise Rs.50,000/- from his brother and they did not give the said amount and due to which on 10.10.1996, he did not report to duty and he stayed at home. Thereafter, he committed suicide by injecting poisonous substance. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not lodged any complaint before the police station. During the course of cross-examination, the defence has brought on record, material contradictions as well as improvements made thereon. PW2 Devkumar Desai has also deposed in similar line to that of PW1. However, in the cross-examination, material contradictions and improvements have been brought on record. PW3 Rupesh Suracousin brother of the deceased has deposed that on the day prior to the incident and on the day when he committed suicide, the deceased met him and demanded Rs.50,000/- for returning the amount to respondent No.1 but he refused. PW4 Kanakben Desai mother of the deceased has deposed that on the day prior to the incident, deceased was confined by the respondent No.1 and obtained signature of the deceased in blank papers and respondent No.1 demanded Rs.70,000/- from him. She has admitted, in the cross-examination, that on previous day of incident, the deceased had apprised his elder brother-Sunil, that he has failed to return Rs.50,000/-. On the next day, the respondent No.1 lodged complaint of misappropriation by the deceased. She has also admitted that though the deceased tried to raise the aforesaid amount from his brother as well as PW3 Rupesh, but he failed to get the same from them. 13. On overall appreciation of evidence on record, it appears that as the deceased was serving as personal assistant with the respondent No.1 and during the course of his employment, the fact revealed that the deceased Manish misappropriated Rs.70,000/- and upon noticing the same, the respondent No.1 demanded the said amount and even threatened the deceased that if he failed to return the said amount on the next day, he would lodged a criminal complaint for misappropriation of money against him. The evidence on record clearly indicates that, the deceased tried to raise at least Rs.50,000/- from his cousin brother and on failing to get the aforesaid amount from his brother, he committed suicide. The evidence on record clearly indicates that, the deceased tried to raise at least Rs.50,000/- from his cousin brother and on failing to get the aforesaid amount from his brother, he committed suicide. Indisputably, none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and all, have turned hostile. Only near relatives have stated the aforesaid story before the Court. Even it may be taken at its face value, then also nowhere even whisper is coming out from their depositions that anyone of the respondents have put the deceased in such a condition, except to commit suicide. However, the evidence on record reveals on the contrary. It is also revealing from the evidence on record that the deceased even admitted that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.70,000/- and upon noticing, the respondent demanded the amount and on failing which to return the amount, a complaint was lodged by the respondent No.1. 14. Upon perusing the evidence of the near relatives of the deceased, it is also revealing that till last day the deceased was happily and peacefully serving with the respondent No.1 and their relations were very good and due to which the respondents have treated the deceased as family member and helped in every stage of life. Keeping this factor in mind, when the deceased was treated as one of the family members and when the respondents knew about the misappropriation of amount of Rs.70,000/-, lawfully demanded to return the money. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in, “Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.”, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 , has held that “words” ‘to go and die’ uttered by the accused by itself does not constitute the ingredients of ‘instigation’. The word ‘instigate’ denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in spur of moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. 16. In the case of “Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 ”, the appellant of the said case allegedly leveled allegations of theft against his labour which drove him to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. 16. In the case of “Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., reported in AIR 2010 SC 327 ”, the appellant of the said case allegedly leveled allegations of theft against his labour which drove him to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from other. Different people behave differently in same situation. In the present case, the deceased was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Without a positive act on part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. In the light of the provisions of law and the settled legal positions crystallized by a series of judgments of this Court and Hob’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court is completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. 17. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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.