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 15.04.2005 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 170 of 2004. 1.1. While admitting the appeal, at the time of considering the leave to appeal, this Court has passed the following order:- "1. Heard Mr. K.C. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the appellant-State. 2. After some deliberations, the leave to appeal qua the respondent No. 1-orig. accused No. 1- Raval Ranchhodbhai Nenabhai is hereby granted and the appeal is admitted qua the respondent No. 1-orig. accused No. 1. The Registry is directed to issue a bailable warrant of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) against the respondent No. 1-orig.accused No. 1. 3. Considering the facts discussed by the learned trial Judge and as Mr. Shah has not heavily pressed for admission of appeal qua respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the leave to appeal qua respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is not granted and therefore, the present appeal against the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 stands dismissed. 4. We have not passed a detailed speaking order for not granting leave to appeal because it is likely to prejudice the either party and also because Mr. K.C. Shah has not pressed for detailed reasons." 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that victim - Hansaben is the wife of respondent No. 1 and respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are her in-laws. It is alleged that span of marriage life of the victim is of about 22 years and she was subjected to intolerable physical and mental harassment. It is alleged that on the day of incident, the victim received burn injuries due to burst of stove and thereafter during the treatment, she died on 28.03.2004. 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 charge-sheet 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. 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 charge-sheet 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 prove the guilt, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as Injury certificate of deceased at Exhibit-17, Inquest Panchnama at Exhibit-22, original complaint at Exhibit-29, panchnama of scene of offence Exhibit-33, dying declaration Exhibit-42, Exhibit-.43, P.M. Report at Exhibit-45 etc. 3.2. At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the 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 the 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. Dabhi learned APP appearing for the appellant State 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 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, the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, the 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. Darshan Dave 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. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Darshan Dave 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. He further submitted that there are three dying declarations available on the record wherein on the date of the incident before the Doctor as well as the Executive Magistrate as also before the Police, deceased - Hansaben declared that while she was preparing tea at that time due to burst of stove, she received burn injuries and while receiving the same, even respondent No. 1 - husband tried to save her and at that time, respondent No. 1 also received burn injuries. However, instead of the aforesaid factual position, for about a week thereafter, the brother of the deceased lodged FIR implicating respondent No. 1 initially and thereafter during the course of giving further statement, he has also implicated other respondents Nos. 2 to 6. He has further submitted that the evidence of the complainant as well as the mother is not in consonance with the circumstantial evidence revealed during the course of drawing the panchnama of the scene of incident as well as detailed inspection carried out by the officials of FSL and even the previous three dying declarations given by the deceased herself. He, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as such. Lastly he, has submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court 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. Darshan Dave learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has gone through the entire paper-book as well as the impugned order rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, more particularly, the reasonings recorded by the learned trial Court from para 8 which runs into several pages. As per the version of the prosecution, respondent No. 1 is the husband of the deceased - Hansaben and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and rest of the respondents are the near relatives of respondent No. 1. As per the version of the prosecution, respondent No. 1 is the husband of the deceased - Hansaben and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law and rest of the respondents are the near relatives of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that they were residing together and all the respondents used to harass the deceased on trivial issues and as the deceased used to sell peanuts on a hand-cart, the respondents raised suspicion on the character of the deceased and due to which she committed suicide by pouring kerosene. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution has examined about 12 witnesses and even produced 24 documentary evidences. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, on 27.03.2004, injured Hansaben was taken to Community Health Center, Kheralu whereby on examination by the Doctor, at the time of examination, she has given a history stating that while she was preparing tea, due to burst of stove, she received injuries and she was being treated there primarily and thereafter she was referred to the Civil Hospital, Mehsana whereby she died on the following day. While she was undergoing treatment, dying declaration on 28.03.2004 was recorded by the Executive Magistrate at Exhibit-42 at about 0130 hrs., wherein, she has narrated that in the night hours while she was preparing tea due to burst of stove, she received burn injuries and on hearing the shouts, her husband - respondent No. 1 came to rescue her and tried to douse the fire by blankets. On the same day, the Constable on duty at the Civil Hospital has also recorded the statement, wherein, she gave detailed statement describing that she is residing along with her children and her husband and her marriage span is about 22 years. On the same day, the Constable on duty at the Civil Hospital has also recorded the statement, wherein, she gave detailed statement describing that she is residing along with her children and her husband and her marriage span is about 22 years. Her elder child is aged about 18 years and the younger one is about 14 years and the youngest one is aged about 10 years and she has further stated that after finishing the agricultural work in the field of Hirabhai, they returned to the house and during night hours while she was preparing tea, at that time, the stove got burst, due to which she sustained injuries and that she had not been burnt by anybody and not even by herself, but due to burst of stove, on catching fire, she shouted for help and on hearing her shouts, her husband - respondent No. 1 came over there and tried to rescue her by covering her with blanket and thereafter they have taken her to Kheralu Community Health Center and from there after taking primary treatment, was taken to Civil Hospital, Mehsana and she is undergoing treatment and she is conscious to make a statement. 8.1. From the record, it appears that soon after the incident, the Police carried out panchnama of the scene of incident which is at Exhibit-33, which clearly indicates that at the place of incident i.e. the house of respondent No. 1 wherein, brass stove was found in a torn condition and all the utensils for preparing tea were also found. It also appears that the officials of FSL has also examined the place of incident and on examination gave a detailed report which is at Exhibit-62, which also discloses the same thing. 8.2. Further though the deceased died on 28.03.2004, the complainant - brother of the deceased lodged typed complaint initially implicating respondent No. 1 - husband of the deceased alleging that deceased was subjected to cruelty and even harass her on trivial issues as well as doubt her character as she was running hand-cart for selling peanuts. Thereafter, by way of further statement, he has implicated respondents Nos. 2 to 6. Thereafter, by way of further statement, he has implicated respondents Nos. 2 to 6. On the overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clearly revealing that soon after the incident, the Panchnama of the scene of occurrence which is carried out by the investigating agency as well as the officials of FSL wherein evidence found is that the incident has taken place due to burst of stove which caught fire and the same thing is also established from the aforesaid three dying declarations given by the deceased. 8.3. Though after about ten days, the aforesaid story put forward by the brother as well as the near relatives of the deceased who have also supported the same, is not in consonance and not in corroboration with the evidence collected by the investigating agency soon after the incident occurred. In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court has not rightly believed the evidence of near relatives as well as the complainant. 8.4. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, entire case of the prosecution rests on dying declarations which appear to have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 28.03.2004 and Civil Duty Constable. On overall evaluation of the dying declarations, the dying declarations were recorded on the day of incident which were recorded after obtaining fitness certificate to get more credibility as compared to the third dying declaration. 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 respondents 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.