JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 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 25/01/2005 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 136 of 2003 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Shivubha Ratansang Jade is agriculturist residing at village Meghna with his family. Marriage of Rekhaba-eldest daughter of the complainant Shivubha was solemnized with accused No. 1 Jitubha before about six months from the date of incident as per their customs and accordingly dowry was also given. After about fifteen days from the marriage, the complainant got telephonic message that his son-in-law Jitubha is not well and he should visit him. The complainant send his wife Sajanben at Jamnagar and Sajanben stayed for one night at Jamnagar and come back to her house with Rekhaba. Upon inquiry, Sajanben replied that Jitubha is well and when she went to her daughter's matrimonial house, her daughter was ready to come with her and upon asking the reason, she did not give any reason and she came with her. Thereafter, upon asking by the complainant and his wife, Rekhaba told that her husband did not like her and the respondents were torturing her and saying that her parents are beggars and have not given sufficient dowry and she was subjected to physical and mental torture. Thereafter, relying upon the say of accused No. 4 uncle-in-law (Mamaji) and accused No. 3 sister-in-law (Nanand) of Rekhaba, with a hope that everything would be good, the complainant send Rekhaba back to her matrimonial house. At that time, Rekhaba was accompanied with Hinaba who is daughter of brother-in-law of the complainant. On 23/08/2003, in the morning, telephonic message was received by the complainant that Rekhaba sustained burn injury and was admitted to Government Hospital. Thereafter the complainant and his wife went to the hospital and visited their daughter. Upon asking by the complainant and his wife, Rekhaba told that she poured kerosene and set on fire because of mental and physical harassment by the respondents. Ultimately, Rekhaba succumbed to injuries. Thereafter the complainant and his wife went to the hospital and visited their daughter. Upon asking by the complainant and his wife, Rekhaba told that she poured kerosene and set on fire because of mental and physical harassment by the respondents. Ultimately, Rekhaba succumbed to injuries. Accordingly the respondents have committed offence punishable under Section 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, a complaint was registered. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondents were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 136 of 2003. The trial was initiated against the respondents. 3. To prove the case against the present respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined about ten witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgment and order dated 25/01/2005. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 6. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. Pradip J. Patel, learned advocate for Mr. V.H. Kanara, learned advocate for the respondents. 7. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP has argued that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the documentary evidence in the nature of dying declarations and wrongly acquitted the accused. It is also argued by learned APP 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 taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP has taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also contended by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondents for the alleged offence under Sections 306, 498(A) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. 8. On the contrary, Mr. Pradip J. Patel, learned advocate for Mr. Kanara, learned advocate for the respondents supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and has argued that parents, sister and brother as well as uncle of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and even in dying declaration also, she has stated that she burned accidentally. In that view of the matter, the accused cannot be linked with the crime and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused as such which calls for no interference of this Court. He has further argued that while she was under treatment in the hospital, subsequently she tried to implicate present respondents as if kerosene was poured over her while she was sleeping and thereby she got burned and that story is unbelievable in view of panchnama of scene of offence as well as investigation carried out by the personnel of the forensic science laboratory. Consequently therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial court is just and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 9. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as paper book and evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State and learned advocate for the respondents. 10. 10. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties to the present proceedings and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, as per the prosecution version, it clearly reveals that the deceased Rekhaba got married with respondent No. 1-Jitubha for about six months prior to the incident and as the respondents were demanding dowry, she was residing at her parental home. On the day prior to the incident, she was brought to the matrimonial home but on that day even she was subjected to cruelty by the respondents due to which she committed suicide by pouring kerosene over herself on 23/08/2003. Thereby the respondents have committed offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. PW-Mahendrasinh who is brother of deceased Rekhaba is examined at Exh. 16. He has deposed that he did not know as to why Rekha died. He has not stated anything involving the present respondents. PW-2 Bhikhubha Lakhaji who is uncle of the deceased and examined at Exh. 17 has turned hostile. PW-3-Shivubha who is complainant is examined at Exh. 20 and he is also declared hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. PW-4-Sajanba and PW-5 Satuba also turned hostile. PW-6 Hinaba who is niece and who accompanied the deceased on the day prior to the incident to her matrimonial home is examined at Exh. 23 and she has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 12. As per the prosecution version, the incident took place on 7:00 a.m. on 23/08/2003. Soon after the incident, Rekhaba was taken to the Government hospital. While administering primary treatment, history was recorded wherein Rekhaba has stated that she accidentally got burned while preparing tea at her home. While incident took place, her family members were sleeping in the home and due to her shouting, they came and family members as well as neighbours took her to the hospital. On the same day on 23/08/2003, at about 9:45 p.m., her dying declaration was also recorded by Mr. While incident took place, her family members were sleeping in the home and due to her shouting, they came and family members as well as neighbours took her to the hospital. On the same day on 23/08/2003, at about 9:45 p.m., her dying declaration was also recorded by Mr. N.M. Patel, Executive Magistrate, Jamnagar after seeking certificate of her mental and physical fitness from the doctor wherein she has stated that in the morning while she was preparing tea, due to burst of stove, she got burned and she has been brought to the hospital by her brother-in-laws and mother-in-law as her husband was away from his house. There was no quarrel and harassment of cruelty from anybody but she sustained injury accidentally. On 23/08/2003, another dying declaration was recorded by the Police Sub Inspector, Jamnagar City "B" Division Police Station which is at Exh. 48 wherein deceased has stated that at about 7:00 a.m. while she was preparing tea, at that time due to burst of stove, she got burned and sustained injury and she has further stated that there was no quarrel and no harassment from anybody to her. On 24/08/2003, the Police Sub Inspector of Jamnagar City "B" Division Police Station has recorded further statement wherein she has narrated that while she has given previous statement, she was under pressure of her sister-in-law as well as mother-in-law and in fact from the date of marriage, her husband did not like her and due to which as well as for insufficient dowry, the respondents were ill-treating her and therefore, she was residing at her parental house and day prior to the incident, she was brought to the house of the respondents and the respondents subjected her to the cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry and due to which she poured kerosene over her body and set on fire and got burned. Another dying declaration is also on record which is recorded by Dr. Vipul Dahyabhai Yagnik who was on duty at the plastic surgery ward wherein the deceased narrated during the evening at about 5:30 p.m. on 23/08/2003 that at around 7:30 a.m. when she was sleeping, she had a burning sensation and pain and found her cloth in flames. When she got up and found that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were present and there was smell of kerosene also. When she got up and found that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were present and there was smell of kerosene also. On that basis, she gave statement of homicidal burn by throwing kerosene over her. Then her mother-n-law and sister-in-law throw water over her to cease fire and then brought to the hospital. 13. In view of overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that none of the relative like father, mother have supported the case of the prosecution. Consequently, therefore, entire case of the prosecution rested upon the oral dying declarations made before the treating doctor as well as police official and the Executive Magistrate. In all the deceased made two statements before the doctor as well as two statements before the Police Sub Inspector, "B" Division Police Station, Jamnagar and one statement before the Executive Magistrate. On analysis of the aforesaid five dying declarations, out of five dying declarations, three dying declarations are in the nature of accidental injury whereas other dying declaration before the plastic surgeon as well as subsequent dying declaration before the PSI "B" Division Police Station, Jamnagar reveals that as her husband did not like her and she did not bring sufficient dowry, she was being ill treated by the respondents and due to which she committed suicide. 14. On overall appreciation of the aforesaid five dying declarations, dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate on the date of incident i.e. on 23/08/203 reveals the incident happened during the nocturnal hours. While recording dying declaration, the Executive Magistrate has also obtained certificate of her mental and physical fitness from the doctor wherein she has clearly and categorically stated that she got burn injuries accidentally. Whereas other dying declaration recorded by the Police Sub Inspector is without getting certificate of fitness whereas in the history narrated to the plastic surgeon, she has stated that while she was sleeping, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law poured kerosene over her and ignited and thereby she sustained burn injuries. 15. However, on going through the other evidence on record in the nature of panchnama of place of incident on 23/08/2003 at about 11:00 a.m. as well as primary inspection of the scene of offence carried out by the officials of the forensic laboratory, it reveals that nowhere such signs were found. 16. In that view of the matter, subsequent dying declaration is not getting corroboration with other dying declarations. 16. In that view of the matter, subsequent dying declaration is not getting corroboration with other dying declarations. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, dying declaration made before the Executive Magistrate gets more credence as he has recorded the same after getting her mental and physical fitness certificate from the treating doctor. 17. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case to link the accused with the crime and whatever the reasons assigned by the learned trial court appears to be just and proper. 18. For the reasons recorded as above, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against them which calls for no interference by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent/s of the charges leveled against them. This Court find that the findings recorded by the 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 the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Accordingly, present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 19. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.