JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. 1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the same judgment and order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2012 whereby original accused No. 1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo further SI for two years for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and RI for three years with fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to suffer further SI for six months for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC. However, no separate sentence was imposed on original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was given set off for the period undergone in jail. Original accused Nos. 2 to 5 were, however, acquitted of all the offences charged against them. Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 has been filed by the State against acquittal of original accused Nos. 2 to 5 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 has been filed by original accused No. 1 against his conviction. 2. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that a complaint was filed by the complainant, father of the deceased-Nayana @ Sonal, against the accused stating that he had five daughters. His daughter Nayana @ Sonal had a love marriage with accused No. 1 Ramesh @ Jitu Hamirbhai Sogathiya. It was alleged inter alia that on 17.7.2011, his daughter Nayana aged 20 years came to his house as being unwell. On inquiry, his daughter narrated the incident to her mother and daughter Kundan stating that since last three months, she was staying separately in the house of Prakashbhai Nathabhai Vankar on rent and as they vacated the premises, she came there. On 20.7.2011, as she was not looking well, on inquiry by her mother, she stated that when she was residing at her in-laws' house, she was beaten by sister-in-law Sonalben, brother-in-law Maheshbhai, wife of brother-in-law, mother-in-law Shardaben and her husband Ramesh @ Jitu. On 20.7.2011, as she was not looking well, on inquiry by her mother, she stated that when she was residing at her in-laws' house, she was beaten by sister-in-law Sonalben, brother-in-law Maheshbhai, wife of brother-in-law, mother-in-law Shardaben and her husband Ramesh @ Jitu. It was also stated that as her husband and brother-in-law Maheshbhai pelted stones on her head, severe injuries were suffered by her and hence, she was staying separately in the house of Prakashbhai Nathabhai Vankar at Sarvodaya Society, Sheri No. 6. It was also stated by her that as her husband was drunkard and was beating her, said house was vacated. Further case of the prosecution was that when her daughter was not traceable, they were in search of their daughter. At that time, one Vinubhai Palabhai informed that a dead body was found in the Haji Dam and when he came to know that said dead body was sent to Government hospital, he went to Government hospital and identified the dead body as that of his daughter. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. The prosecution also relied on several documentary evidence. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. 2.2 On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned judgment and order as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment was delivered giving rise to the present appeals. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. Reeta Chandarana for the State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Prashant B. Khandheria for the original accused. 4. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 filed by original accused No. 1 against his conviction is concerned, learned APP, Ms. Reeta Chandarana, vehemently submitted that marriage span was only of seven months and it was a love marriage. Reeta Chandarana for the State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Prashant B. Khandheria for the original accused. 4. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 filed by original accused No. 1 against his conviction is concerned, learned APP, Ms. Reeta Chandarana, vehemently submitted that marriage span was only of seven months and it was a love marriage. Moreover, it has come on record that during the short span of marriage life, the deceased lodged a complaint against her husband on 19.5.2011 by way of annexures which is at Exh. 95. Drawing attention of this Court on the depositions of P.W. No. 4-Narsibhai Khodabhai Kochra at Exh. 33 and P.W. No. 5-Hansaben, Wife of Narsibhai Khodabhai Kochra at Exh. 35, she submitted that when parents have supported the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that they are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be considered more particularly when they are trustworthy. Taking this Court through paragraph 141 of the impugned judgment and order, she submitted that since expert opinion has not come on record, by discussing rest of the evidence on record at length, the trial court has come to the conclusion that at the most, expert opinion can be said to be corroborative piece of evidence but cannot take the place of substantive piece of evidence and considering the entire evidence on record, the trial court has rightly convicted original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and no interference is called for in the same. She, therefore, urged to dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014. 5. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 filed by the State against acquittal of original accused Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned, she submitted that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against them beyond reasonable doubt. She further submitted that though the prosecution has examined several witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution, the trial court has not properly appreciated their evidence and therefore, the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against them by leading legal, reliable and impeachable evidence is contrary to the evidence available on record. She further submitted that though the prosecution has examined several witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution, the trial court has not properly appreciated their evidence and therefore, the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against them by leading legal, reliable and impeachable evidence is contrary to the evidence available on record. She further submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. Although almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court has committed a grave error in disbelieving their evidence and in acquitting original accused Nos. 2 to 5 and therefore, it is requested that Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Prashant B. Khandheria, learned advocate for the original accused, in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 filed by original accused No. 1, drew attention of this Court on the depositions of P.W. No. 4-Narsibhai Khodabhai Kochra, Exh. 33, P.W. No. 5-Hansaben, Wife of Narsibhai Khodabhai Kochra, Exh. 35, who are parents of the deceased and submitted that except the evidence of these witnesses, no substantial evidence is forthcoming on the record against accused No. 1 herein. He further submitted that the prosecution has not examined neighbours of the deceased. Moreover, the date of incident is 21.7.2011 and it has come on record that prior to that i.e. on 17.7.2011, the deceased started living separately from original accused No. 1 and returned to her parental home and similarly, accused No. 1 also returned to his parental house and thus, when suicide was committed, the deceased was at her parental home and not at her matrimonial home or with her husband. He further submitted that no panchas have supported the case of the prosecution. Even the panchas of recovery of suicide note have not supported the case of the prosecution. He also put stress on his submission by submitting that neither recovery of suicide note had been properly established by the prosecution nor has the opinion of handwriting expert been produced on the record by the prosecution and hence, the important link in the prosecution case remained unsolved and therefore, accused No. 1 cannot be penalised more particularly when he is entitled to benefit of doubt. He ultimately urged to allow Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014. 7. He ultimately urged to allow Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014. 7. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 is concerned, he submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence appearing on record and the reasons assigned for recording a finding of acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 5 are reasonable and justifiable. According to him, there are glaring and major contradictions and material improvements without any satisfactory explanation in the depositions of prosecution witnesses and therefore, accused Nos. 2 to 5 were rightly acquitted by the trial court. He further submitted that Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. He ultimately urged to dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014. 8. It is required to be noted that the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions. 8.1 In the case of Dilawar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015)1 SCC 737 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 36 and 37 as under: "36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record. 37. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: "42.....(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. 37. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: "42.....(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602 ." 8.2 In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court In para 16 as under: "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with." 8.3 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors, reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under: "10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his anke was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence." 8.4 Even in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under: "4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellant very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]" 8.5 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, 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. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein it is held as under: "... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary, (1967) 1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." 8.6 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and Ors v. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 8.7 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then elaborate discussion of evidence or assigning fresh reasons are not necessary. 9. This Court has considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 10. As regards acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 5 is concerned, it is to be noted that nothing is forthcoming on record describing involvement of any of these accused in causing the deceased to commit suicide and the trial court, considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, has acquitted them for the offences charged against them. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting them. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court in that regard are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it in the said findings. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence to take a view contrary to the view taken by the trial court or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 is required to be dismissed. 11. As regards accused No. 1 is concerned, this Court has gone through the depositions of most of the witnesses more particularly P.W. No. 4-Narsibhai Khodabhai Kochra at Exh. 33 and P.W. No. 5-Hansaben, Wife of Narsibhai Khodabhai Kochra at Exh. 35. It appears that during the short span of marriage life of seven months, the deceased had thrice changed her residence i.e. initially after the love marriage, she started to reside in the joint family of accused No. 1 and as the quarrel took place, the deceased and accused No. 1 started to live at her sister-in-law's house i.e. at the house of accused No. 5 and thereafter, both changed their residence due to some disputes with sister-in-law and started living separately. During the short span of marriage life, the deceased had lodged complaint vide annexures at Exh. 95 against accused No. 1 on 19.5.2011 before Police Inspector, Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City. During the short span of marriage life, the deceased had lodged complaint vide annexures at Exh. 95 against accused No. 1 on 19.5.2011 before Police Inspector, Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City. In the subject column of the said complaint, she had written that "to make the compromise with her husband regarding the disputes" and if the averments made in the said complaint are perused, mainly the grievances advanced by the deceased are seen and would appear that accused No. 1 was not doing any work and used to drink liquor and accordingly, he was not giving sufficient money for household expenses and when she started to do a job to earn a living, he was doubting her character and used to raise the dispute and hence, it was requested to call him and make him understand to give sufficient amount of money for household expenses, stop from drinking liquor and treat her nicely. It appears from another annexure to said complaint at Exh. 95 on page 396 that in absence of complete address, the concerned police official filed the said application. Referring to the said complaint, it can be said that though it is the fact that within a span of seven months, the deceased had raised grievances against her husband as referred hereinabove but, as such, allegations were made in the said complaint only against her husband mainly to the effect that he was not properly looking after her i.e. the deceased and no grievance was raised against rest of the family members of the accused No. 1. As such, financial crisis had led her to file said complaint. However, no major grievances like demand of dowry, physical and mental cruelty, etc. appear to have been made against accused No. 1. If the entire discussion made by the trial court right from paragraph Nos. 106 to 112 is verified, it would appear that the averments were related to suicide note at Exh. 92 and at the end of discussion, it was concluded by the trial court that opinion of handwriting expert, though not forthcoming on the record, being a corroborative piece of evidence, would not be prejudicial to the accused No. 1 and relying mainly upon the substantial piece of evidence i.e. evidence of P.W. Nos. 4 and 5, convicted the accused No. 1. 4 and 5, convicted the accused No. 1. Under the circumstances, if chronology of events regarding the suicide note is perused, it would appear that after the incident in question, complaint has been filed on 23.7.2011 and during the course of investigation, it has come on record that suicide note at Exh. 92 was seized by the Investigating Officer after drawing panchnama. Thereafter, love letters written by the deceased were seized though panchas of said panchnama did not support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, fact remains that said documents were forwarded to FSL for getting opinion of handwriting expert as to whether the suicide note was of the handwriting of the deceased or not. It has been deposed by the Investigating Officer, P.W. No. 13-Rajendrabhai Maganlal Joshi, Exh. 83 in his chief examination that suicide note at Exh. 92 and natural handwriting documents like 'chithis' found from the house of the deceased were forwarded through the Deputy Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, vide letter dated 30.12.2011 to the Deputy Controller, Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Photographic Bureau, First Floor, Sector No. 18/A, Behind Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, and report to that effect was made by him. He has admitted the said facts in his cross-examination in paragraph No. 13 also by deposing that suicide note and natural handwriting documents of the deceased were forwarded to the handwriting expert of FSL, Gandhinagar, through Deputy Police Commissioner, Rajkot City. Inspite of the said fact, FSL report has not come on the record and proceedings. If the documents at Exh. 97 is verified, it would appear that the Deputy Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, addressed a letter dated 30.12.2011 to the Deputy Controller, Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Photographic Bureau, First Floor, Sector No. 18/A, Behind Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, forwarding the question documents as well as the natural documents for examination. Document at Exh. 98 is a letter dated 23.12.2011 written by Police Sub Inspector, Rajkot City, Rajkot, to Chief Handwriting Expert, Office of Chief Handwriting Expert, Handwriting and Photographic Bureau, Behind Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, forwarding the disputed/question documents as well as natural documents for examination. Document at Exh. 98 is a letter dated 23.12.2011 written by Police Sub Inspector, Rajkot City, Rajkot, to Chief Handwriting Expert, Office of Chief Handwriting Expert, Handwriting and Photographic Bureau, Behind Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, forwarding the disputed/question documents as well as natural documents for examination. Thereafter, witness summons were issued by the Court to Forensic Science Laboratory, Handwriting and Photographic Bureau, First Floor, Sector No. 18/A, Behind Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, and in response thereto, it was replied by FSL by addressing a letter to 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, specifically mentioning that the documents forwarded to their office were returned vide No. FSL/HPB/MISE/9/12 dated 4.1.2012 to the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, through the responsible Officer for compliance of the defects mentioned in the said letter and return the same to their office. Said letter No. FSL/HPB/MISC/9/12 dated 4.1.2012 is at Exh. 109. By said letter, paragraph Nos. 1, 5 and 14 were required to be complied with and thereafter the same were returned to FSL for examination of those documents i.e. the disputed/question documents and the natural documents in form of handwriting of the deceased earlier forwarded by the concerned Police Official. The said paragraph Nos. 1, 5 and 14 were sought for by the FSL official, the summary of which read as under: "(1) Opinion given on every disputed writings/signatures should be sent by marking round circle with red pencil, which is essential as per Rule 167(6)(D) of the Gujarat Police Manual. For clear identification of each and every disputed writing/signature, such red circle marked should give separate markings like D-1, D-2, D-3 etc. which is not done in this case. Disputed document should contain signatures of two panchas and Investigating Officer. It was requested to give marking of Marks D1 and D1/1 to the disputed document. (5) Writings of all the persons related to the case, written by them in their routine dealings as well as contemporary to disputed writing and natural writing/signature similar to it, are not sent. Clear marking like N-1, N2, N-3, N-4 etc. are also not given. It was requested to send natural writing/signature in excess proportion as required under Rule 167(6)(C) Part-3 of the Gujarat Police Manual. It is not fair that natural writing/signatures are not sent though available in excess proportion in the case of suspect/original person being a Government employee. Clear marking like N-1, N2, N-3, N-4 etc. are also not given. It was requested to send natural writing/signature in excess proportion as required under Rule 167(6)(C) Part-3 of the Gujarat Police Manual. It is not fair that natural writing/signatures are not sent though available in excess proportion in the case of suspect/original person being a Government employee. It was requested to send by seizing the natural writings, signatures of the deceased as well as figures and figures written in English with proper marking for examination. (14) If the Investigating Officer still requires any clarification in the above matter then he may seek clarification by personal visit in this bureau during office hours on any working day." It is the fact that, no compliance was thereafter made by the prosecution in relation to the letter at Exh. 109 referred hereinabove and learned APP has failed to point out whether any compliance has been made subsequently therein or not. Drawing attention of this Court on paragraph No. 141 of the impugned judgment and order, learned APP submitted that the trial court has discussed at length the said issue and came to the conclusion that in light of other evidence forthcoming on the record and also considering the answers given to the questions asked in the further statement under section 313 of the Code, expert's report can be said to be corroborative piece of evidence and when the substantive evidence is there on record, in absence of report of handwriting expert, the Court can take cognizance of the suicide note in light of rest of the documents forthcoming on record like signatures in marriage registration certificate. So far as the case on hand is concerned, in my view, expert's opinion i.e. the report of the handwriting expert discussed hereinabove was very much required to decide the issue in question and in absence of the same, the Court cannot place sole reliance on the contradictory versions appearing in the testimonies of P.W. Nos. 4 and 5 and thus, the import link in my view is missing and benefit of the same naturally would go in favour of appellant-accused No. 1. 12. It appears from the record that incident in question occurred when the deceased was at her parental house. 4 and 5 and thus, the import link in my view is missing and benefit of the same naturally would go in favour of appellant-accused No. 1. 12. It appears from the record that incident in question occurred when the deceased was at her parental house. It is to be noted that no allegation of demand of dowry or any physical or mental cruelty at the hands of appellant-accused No. 1 was ever raised by the deceased. Even in the complaint given by the deceased to the police against her husband during the short span of marriage life also, no such allegation of demand of dowry or any physical and mental cruelty meted out by accused No. 1 has been levelled by the deceased but only grievance raised by her was regarding non-payment of sufficient amount of money towards household expenses and not properly looking after her. Thus, ingredients of offence punishable under sections 306 and 498-A are not attracted against accused No. 1 and though the marriage span is of seven months, presumption as to abatement of suicide under section 113-A or 113B of Indian Evidence Act, in my view, cannot be drawn. In view of the above, a doubt is created in the mind of this Court as to actual involvement of the accused No. 1 in the offence in question and hence, benefit of doubt is required to be given to him. It appears that the trial court, in the impugned judgment and order, did not consider all these aspects and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellant - original accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence to which, in view of the above discussion and taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case coupled with other evidence discussed herein above, can be said to be not proving the guilt against accused No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court on accused No. 1 was unjust and improper. 13. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 1 has undergone four years, eight months and nineteen days of imprisonment out of his conviction of ten years and as such, almost half of the sentence i.e. substantial sentence appears to have been undergone by him. 14. 13. It is pertinent to note that accused No. 1 has undergone four years, eight months and nineteen days of imprisonment out of his conviction of ten years and as such, almost half of the sentence i.e. substantial sentence appears to have been undergone by him. 14. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014, therefore, requires to be allowed by acquitting accused No. 1 by giving benefit of doubt of the offences charged against him by quashing and setting aside his conviction and sentence. 15. Under the above circumstances, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2014 is dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2014 is, however, allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on original accused No. 1 vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Sessions Case No. 10 of 2012 are hereby quashed and set aside and he is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving benefit of doubt. He is in jail and hence, he is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other offence. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. However, fine paid by the accused shall not be refunded. Records and proceedings shall be sent back to the courts below forthwith. Registry shall send copy of the farad by fax to the concerned jail authorities.