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 16.8.2004, recorded by the learned Joint District Judge and Presiding Officer, 5th Fast Track Court, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2001. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the marriage between the deceased Vidhyaben and respondent No. 3-Maheshbhai Thakore took place six years prior from the date of incident and since that day the deceased was staying at her matrimonial home. The respondent was continuously forcing her to leave the matrimonial home so that they can arrange second marriage of her husband. On 31.8.2000, deceased-Vidhyaben consumed poisonous substance and committed suicide. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 114, 201 and 176 of the IPC, was filed before Khambhat Rural Police Station. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which came to be committed to the learned trial Court. After conclusion of trial and hearing, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents from all the charges levelled against them. 3.1 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. 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 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. 6. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 6. 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. 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 498(A), 306, 114, 201 and 176 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, learned APP has further argued that evidence in the nature of dying declaration was available on the record as well as all evidences including evidence of prosecution witnesses who are near relatives of the deceased have clearly revealed before the trial Court that the present respondents ill treated the deceased and continuously teased her that she is sterile and due to which she committed suicide. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate appearing 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 further argued that there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate appearing 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 further argued that there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the crime. He further argued that complaint was lodged after about 10 days from the date of incident and even the complaint had been lodged upon the information received from the neighbors and which was based on hearsay. He further argued that from the set of the evidence, no iota of evidence is available to the effect that the accused have abetted her to commit suicide and consequently therefore, finding recorded by the learned trial Court is in consonance with the evidence available on record which calls for no interference. 8. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Ramnandan Singh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents-accused. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment as well as record and proceedings of learned trial Court, on overall analysis of the evidence on record, indisputably as per the prosecution case, the present respondents who happened to be husband and near relatives of her husband used to tease the deceased by calling her sterile and due to such continuously teasing, she committed suicide. 10. In order to prove the guilt on the part of the present respondents, the prosecution examined for about 8 witnesses and also placed several documentary evidence before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has examined PW-1-Bhagwanbhai Thakore who has deposed that he was serving as Section Officer and Vidhya is his niece and she was married with respondent No. 3-Maheshbhi Thakore six years prior to the incident. He further deposed that deceased-Vidhya was having no child and due to which all respondents subjected her to cruelty and on 31st August, 2000, respondent No. 1 Tribhovanbhai Thakore alongwith another person came to his house and informed that Vidhya died due to heart attack and on the receiving information, he alongwith five brothers reached the place of incident and they decided not to perform post-mortem and decided to carry out post death ceremony. He further deposed that after performing post death ceremony, they realized that her death is suspicious and they visited the Police Station but Police refused to lodge the complaint and thereafter the complaint was lodged before the Magistrate. He further deposed that the respondent No. 1 father-in-law of the deceased tried to commit rape upon the deceased and due to which she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not mentioned in the complaint that the local police and Dy. S.P. were not taking any attention upon his complaint. He has also admitted that he engaged an advocate who wrote the complaint. He has further admitted that he informed his advocate that his niece died untimely and he did not informed anything else to his advocate. He further admitted that he had not mentioned in his complaint that the father-in-law of the deceased abetted her to commit suicide. He further admitted that he had not mentioned in the complaint regarding the fact that whenever the deceased visited his house, she would inform his wife that the respondents were harassing her. PW-2-Devabhai-uncle of the deceased has deposed in similar lines. PW-3-Shantaben has deposed that she was informed by the deceased that she was ill-treated for not bearing child. PW-4-Ramtubhai Bhagwanbhai-neighbour of the deceased has deposed that on the day of incident, during nocturnal hours, he heard shouting and thereafter, he went to house of the deceased and her house was locked and deceased-Vidhya was lying on the floor, at that time, he knocked the door but respondent No. 1-Tribhovanbhai told him that this is his personal matter. On the following day, he came to know that deceased-Vidhya was died. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that deceased-Vidhya was having no child due to which respondents used to tease her by calling her sterile. He has further admitted that his house is situated 100 to 150 ft. from house of the deceased. PW-5-Ramanbhai has also deposed in similar lines. PW-7-Babubhai Patel who was serving as Dy. S.P. in Khambhat Division had carried out further investigation. He has further admitted that his house is situated 100 to 150 ft. from house of the deceased. PW-5-Ramanbhai has also deposed in similar lines. PW-7-Babubhai Patel who was serving as Dy. S.P. in Khambhat Division had carried out further investigation. He has admitted that he received complaint in typed copy from the Court and during the course of the investigation, nothing revealed that the complainant tried to lodge the complaint before the police station and police refused to file the complaint and due to which he approached the Court for filing complaint. So far as the allegations levelled regarding refusal to lodge complaint by the police is concerned, the same was found false during the course of investigation. 11. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clearly emerging out that the dead body of the deceased was disposed without performing postmortem and complaint was lodged after a period of 9 days from the date of incident. The advocate for the complainant wrote all stories in the complaint as per the information received by the complainant that the father-in-law of the deceased tried to rape the deceased and respondents used to tease her by calling sterile and due to which she committed suicide. So far as the allegation of committing rape by the father-in-law of the deceased is concerned, the neighbors of the deceased have also not supported the case of the prosecution. As per the say of the complainant, he received information from the neighbors of the deceased that the father-in-law committed rape upon the deceased and due to which she committed suicide. Indisputably, she was suffering from illness and on the previous day of the incident, she was treated by a private doctor. Taking into consideration late lodging of complaint as well as allegation made in the complaint does not support the case of the prosecution, In that view of the matter, the complaint itself appears to be false. Uncle of the deceased has also made material contradictions, improvements during the course of the trial. In that view of the matter his evidence becomes doubtful. In view of the aforesaid nature of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the judgment of acquittal which requires no interference. 12. Uncle of the deceased has also made material contradictions, improvements during the course of the trial. In that view of the matter his evidence becomes doubtful. In view of the aforesaid nature of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the judgment of acquittal which requires no interference. 12. 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. 13. 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 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. 14. 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.