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 28.10.2005 rendered by learned Presiding Officer, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2004. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased had two marriages earlier and thirdly, the deceased had married with Sumitraben - accused No. 1. It is alleged that thereafter accused No. 1 had fallen in love with Arvindbhai and she was found to have been travelling with Arvindbhai in rickshaw. It is alleged that before 20 - 25 days ago, accused No. 1 had left the house of the deceased with her children Bipin and Heena without informing anybody for which the complaint was lodged by deceased Natwarsinh for missing of his wife and children. It is alleged that thereafter the deceased along with his two children have committed suicide. 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 chargesheet 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 bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements 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. 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. L.R. Pujari, 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 suicide note was recovered from the dead body of deceased Natwarsinh wherein the present respondents are clearly named and due to their abetment, the deceased has committed suicide. He submitted that the suicide note is proved in accordance with law though learned trial Court has not believed the same and wrongfully acquitted the accused. He submitted that evidence of the witnesses has not been properly appreciated by learned trial Court. He submitted that this is not a case of single suicide, but multiple suicide wherein prior to the commission of his own suicide, Natwarsinh also either hanged or strangulated two infants i.e. Bipin and Hina due to harassment meted out by the respondents. 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. K.R. 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. Mr. Dave further submitted that the accused cannot be linked with the crime in question as admittedly none of the accused have come in contact for about 10 days prior to the commission of suicide and there appears no abetment, incitement or any short of assistance to drive the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that even if the recital made in the suicide note Exh. 21 if taken as it is, then also provisions of section 306 of IPC cannot be attracted in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 . He submitted that even if the recital made in the suicide note Exh. 21 if taken as it is, then also provisions of section 306 of IPC cannot be attracted in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998 . He submitted that it appears that the deceased has performed, in his life time, the third marriage with respondent No. 1 in previous two marriages also, the deceased had 3 - 4 children and they got married also. He submitted that the deceased used to remain out from home for Bhajan and Kirtan etc., and failure in the earlier marriages, he might have developed suicidal tendency, due to which the deceased himself has concluded from the present respondents and might have committed suicide along with his children, but for that act on the part of deceased Natwarsinh, the respondents cannot be held responsible. 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.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Dave, 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. As per the prosecution version, respondent No. 1 got married with deceased Natwarsinh for about 7 years prior to the incident and she developed illicit relation with respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 aided in development of such illicit relation between respondent Nos. 1 and 3, due to which, respondent No. 1 used to taunt and quarrel with him and used to tell him to die or to leave home, due to which, the deceased after strangulating his two children committed suicide on 10.2.2004 in the agricultural field of his father-in-law situated at village Kalak, Taluka Jambusar, District Bharuch which is a distant place from his own residence and thereby the respondents have committed the offences punishable under section 306 read with section 114 of IPC. 8.1 PW 1 - Arjunsinh Amarsinh Parmar has deposed that the deceased was his cousin brother and prior to marriage with respondent No. 1, the deceased got married twice. The witness stated that the deceased was working in GIDC, Manjusar whereas Sumitraben - accused No. 1 was working in bricks clan, due to which she came in contact with respondent No. 3 and developed illicit relation. The witness stated that for about 20 - 25 days prior to the incident, respondent No. 1 left the house along with children without informing anybody for which the deceased lodged missing complaint before the concerned Police Station and thereafter on 30.1.2004, they were brought before Bhadarva Police Station thereafter custody of two children and Sumitraben - accused No. 1 was handed over and thereafter around 10.2.2004, the dead body of deceased Natwarsinh as well his two children were found from the field of his father-in-law at village Kalak. Thereafter, detailed investigation was carried out and dead bodies were sent for autopsy. The prosecution has also examined other witnesses as well as police witnesses. 8.2 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clear that this was the third marriage of deceased Natwarsinh with present respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 had developed illicit relation with respondent No. 3, due to which, relationship of the deceased and respondent No. 1 was strained as well as there was quarrel as regards to matrimonial dispute. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 left the matrimonial home along with children for which the deceased lodged missing report and hence, they were apprehended and brought before Bhadarva Police Station on 30.1.2004 and at that time, the custody of two children were handed over to the deceased and thereafter they found dead. 8.3 Indisputably, the death of the deceased along with his two children was found to be asphyxia due to strangulation and as per the opinion of Dr. Shah who carried out autopsy, both the children were strangulated and thereafter the death of deceased Natwarsinh which is due to hanging. It appears that deceased Natwarsinh first killed both the children by strangulating them and thereafter he himself hanged and committed suicide and there is no dispute to this fact. Shah who carried out autopsy, both the children were strangulated and thereafter the death of deceased Natwarsinh which is due to hanging. It appears that deceased Natwarsinh first killed both the children by strangulating them and thereafter he himself hanged and committed suicide and there is no dispute to this fact. 8.4 So far as linking the present respondents with the crime in question is concerned, it is very difficult to link the present respondents with the crime in question keeping in mind the provisions of section 107 read with section 307 of IPC. Indisputably, as per the deposition of Investigating Officer PW 14 - R.N. Chauhan, respondent No. 1 was not in contact with the deceased for about last ten days i.e. prior to the commission of the alleged suicide. Therefore, evidence on record clearly suggests that there was no personal meeting, quarrel or any sort of exchange of words between respondent No. 1 and the deceased and his children. In this view of the matter, there appears no proximate cause of giving any sort of incitement and abetment to commit suicide and, therefore, the respondents cannot be linked with the crime in question. On the contrary, on going through the factual scenario emerging out, it appears that the deceased was fad up with his married life and in the third marriage life, his wife has developed illicit relation with respondent No. 3, due to which, he used to spend time in writing Bajan and Kirtan, due to which he might have developed suicidal tendency and would have committed suicide and for that act on the part of deceased Natwarsinh, the respondents cannot be linked with the crime in question. 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 them. 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 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. 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.