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 10.12.2004 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 126 of 1997. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that deceased Jayaben married to Vinodbhai before nine years from the date of incident. It is alleged that on 9.3.1997 Vinodbhai - husband of the deceased after visiting the fair had returned home and had taunted the deceased and said that he does not like the deceased and it is better is she dies. It is alleged that being hurt by the same, the deceased sprinkled kerosene over her person and set herself on fire. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondent 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 9 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as panchnama of scene of offence Exh.32, inquest panchnama Exh.46, complaint Exh.56 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement 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. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. 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 though oral evidence is not supporting the case of the prosecution, but there are two dying declarations which are at Exhs.56 and 38 recorded by the Executive Magistrate as well as Police wherein the deceased has clearly stated that as she did not like her husband Vinod, he was constantly beating her and saying her to die, due to which, she poured kerosene over her person on 6.3.1997 and committed suicide. He submitted that both the aforesaid dying declarations are proved during the course of trial and, therefore, direct evidence is available and that has not been appreciated in its proper perspective. In his submission, 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. P.B. Khambholja, 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. Khambholja further submitted that as none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, entire case of the prosecution is rested upon dying declarations and dying declarations are not getting support and corroboration from other evidence on record. He submitted that on the contrary, Medical Officer who treated the deceased has narrated that she was unconscious and she was not able to speak and her general condition was very poor and she survived for about five years after commission of suicide and, therefore, dying declarations in absence of taking certificate of mental and physical fitness become meaningless. He submitted that therefore, the said dying declarations are contrary to the medical opinion given by the Medical Officer who treated the deceased and, hence, learned trial Court has rightly not believed the same. He further argued that as per the history given by the deceased herself as well as husband of the deceased who rescued her while the deceased received burn injuries while preparing food, she herself has narrated that she caught fire due to accident while preparing food. He further argued that as per the history given by the deceased herself as well as husband of the deceased who rescued her while the deceased received burn injuries while preparing food, she herself has narrated that she caught fire due to accident while preparing food. He submitted that therefore the case is accidental and not suicidal. He, therefore, 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. P.B. Khambholja, 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. PW 1 - Dr. Tusharbhai Hasmukhbhai Adesara has deposed that on 9.3.1997 he was on duty in Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar during night hours and at about 10.20 hours Jayaben Koli was brought before him. The witness stated that while he examined Jayaben Koli, she was unconscious and she was not able to speak and her general condition was very poor. The witness has stated that in the history as regards to her burn injuries, it is disclosed that she got burn injuries while she preparing food and she died on 10.3.1997 at 3.00 am i.e. within five years from her admission in the hospital. The witness further stated that at the same time, the witness also examined Vinod and he narrated in the history that while rescuing his wife, he received burn injuries and he did received 25% burn injuries. The witness stated that Vinod was treated as indoor patient till 21.3.1997 and thereafter against the medical advice, he left the hospital. The witness further stated that similarly, Nehal Vinodbhai was also admitted in the hospital and she also received burn injuries. The witness stated that as per the say of Nehal, it was accidental burn injuries and she was also treated till 20.3.1997 and thereafter, she left the hospital against the medical advice. The witness stated that Nehal also received 32 to 40% burn injuries. The witness stated that as per the say of Nehal, it was accidental burn injuries and she was also treated till 20.3.1997 and thereafter, she left the hospital against the medical advice. The witness stated that Nehal also received 32 to 40% burn injuries. In his cross examination, the witness has admitted that the injuries found over the person of Jayaben could have been possible due to accidental burn injuries. 8.1 PW 2 - Popatbhai Bijalbhai who is panch of the panchnama of scene of incident which came to be drawn soon after the incident wherein he has detailed about the place of incident. However, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that respondent Vinod is his neighbour and his house is situated adjacent to the house of Vinod and they were having good relation with each other. The witness has further stated that Jayaben has never complained regarding ill-treatment by the respondents. PW 3 - Nabuben Manjibhai who is mother of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and she is declared hostile. However, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that her daughter and her son-in-law were happily residing together and there was no harassment or cruelty meted out to the deceased. The witness further admitted that her daughter received burn injuries due to accident and her daughter was unconscious and she remained unconscious till her last breath, due to which, she could not ask anything to her. 8.2 PW 4 - Jayaben Shivabhai who is neighbour of deceased Jayaben is also declared hostile. However, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that she has never heard any sort of harassment meted out to deceased Jayaben. PW 5 - Kishorsinh Vakhatsinh who is the neighbour of the deceased has deposed that he knew the deceased as well as the respondent and the deceased received burn injuries due to accident while preparing the food. 8.3 PW 6 - Kamleshbhai Somaji Kotwal, Executive Magistrate has deposed that on 9.3.1997 during the nocturnal hours, as per the requisition, he recorded the dying declaration as stated by the deceased. The witness stated that he also obtained the certificate from the hospital regarding her consciousness. However, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that consciousness and mental capacity both are different in nature. The witness stated that he also obtained the certificate from the hospital regarding her consciousness. However, in the cross examination, the witness has admitted that consciousness and mental capacity both are different in nature. The witness has stated that she was able to say as she was conscious and, therefore, her mental condition was also good. The witness has stated that he is not able to opine as regards to her mental condition. The witness has admitted that while recording the dying declaration, mental condition of a person is required to be ascertained and while recording the dying declaration of Jayaben, he did not obtain any such certificate of her mental condition. 8.4 Dr. Yasminben Aladinbhai Kaba who performed autopsy over the person of the deceased along with other Doctor has deposed that the injuries found over the person of the deceased could have been possible due to accidental burn injuries while preparing food. 8.5 The documentary evidence in the nature of medical certificate of deceased Jayaben at Exh. 28 discloses that she was taken to Sir T. Hospital, Bhavnagar at 10.20 hours on 9.3.1997 and the history was mentioned as accidental burn at the time 1/2 hours back while preparing food; the patient not fully conscious; only respond to verbal steamily and not able to speak, general condition poor and the patient expired on 10.3.1997 at 3.00 am. The medical case papers also indicate that she was also administered sedative drugs as she received burn injuries. The dying declaration recorded by the Police Sub Inspector, "B" Division Police Station, Bhavnagar on 9.3.1997 indicates that deceased Jayaben was residing along with her husband and two children as well as her brother-in-law and mother-in-law. On 6.3.1997 while her husband returned from Shivratri fair in the morning, she was severally beaten and she told that she did not like him and, therefore, he was frequently beating her and also telling her to die and as her husband went to answer the call of nature, at that time, she was alone in the house and she poured the kerosene on her person and set herself on fire; due to screaming, her husband arrived at home and while rescuing her, he also received burn injuries as well as her daughter also got burn injuries. 8.6 Similar dying declaration is also stated to have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 9.3.1997. 8.6 Similar dying declaration is also stated to have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate on 9.3.1997. 8.7 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution. In this view of the matter, the entire case of the prosecution is rested upon the aforesaid two dying declarations. Both the dying declarations on record are contrary to the history given by the deceased herself as well as her husband also gave history while he received the burn injuries while rescuing her wherein it is emerging out that the deceased got burn injuries due to accident while preparing the food. However, in the dying declaration, it is coming on record that as she did not like the husband, due to which, he was constantly beating her and therefore, she has committed suicide and the said fact could not be proved by the prosecution. As per the say of the Medical Officer, who treated the deceased that while she was admitted at 10.20 hours on 9.3.1997, she was unconscious and she was not able to speak and her general condition was poor and thereafter, within five ours, she succumbed to the burn injuries and she was administered sedative drugs. In this view of the matter, within short period of five hours, the aforesaid two dying declarations are alleged to have been recorded by the Executive Magistrate as well as Police. Under the circumstances, both the dying declarations are lacking mental and physical fitness certificate of the deceased by the Medical Officer who treated her. Taking into consideration the evidence of the Medical Officer who treated the deceased, it appears that the deceased was not fit and till the last moment, she remained unconscious and that fact is also deposed by her mother - PW 3 in her deposition. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent 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. 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. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.