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 06.06.2006 rendered by learned 3rd Fast Track Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2002. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that one untoward incident occurred between the children of complainant Heenaben and her neighbour Kapilaben on 17.01.2002 for which the husband of Complainant Heenaben made one application before Gujarat Electricity Board, for the said incident the complainant after considering the request made by others did not register any complaint before the concerned police station. However, the husband of Kapilaben registered one complaint against the husband of complainant before the concerned police station. In respect of the aforesaid offence, the husband of Kapilaben i.e. Vinubhai Thakar forced the complainant to settle the matter by giving them threats and abuses, thereafter on 03.04.2002, Vinubhai again threatened to kill the husband of the complainant for settling the matter within 14 days and to get transferred from the place of his service. Thereafter, on 04.04.2002, the deceased left his house in the morning and on 05.04.2002, the dead body of the husband of the complainant was found near Satadhar and therefore, the offence punishable under section 306 and 114 of the IPC was registered before Visavadar Police Station vide C.R. No. I-42/2002 against the respondents. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 5. 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. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. 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. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. 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. 8. Mr. L.B. 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 wife, father and brother have supported the case of the prosecution and even the version of the aforesaid witnesses has been materially corroborated from the suicide notes came to be recorded at exhibit 22 and 25, the learned Trial Court did not believe the same as certain improvements as well as contradictions are found therein and the learned Trial Court wrongfully did not believe the aforesaid suicide notes as they were not believed to be proved in accordance with law as no opinion was obtained from the Handwriting Expert. He has further argued that there was previous enmity between the complainant and the respondents and therefore, the respondents used to harass the deceased, due to which, he has taken the suicidal act which has direct nexus with harassment meted out to the deceased and that could have been believed and the trail court could have convicted as such. 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. 9. On the other-hand, Mr. Abhishek, learned advocate for the respondents has argued that the evidence of wife of the deceased as well as father and brother is containing lots of improvements thereon which is not consistent even if the suicide notes may be believed to be true and admittedly on conjoint reading of oral evidence in the light of suicide notes, the witnesses have wrongfully implicated the respondent no. 3 who has not been named by the deceased in the aforesaid suicide notes at exhibit 22 and 25. He has further argued that the suicide notes at exhibit nos. 22 and 25 are not believable for variety of reasons as the prosecution have not established the authorship as such by seeking expert opinion from the handwriting expert and even handwritings over the aforesaid three chits are different and that fact is also admitted by the Investigating Officer also though the prosecution did not obtain any opinion from the expert. Suicide notes become unbelievable as if the writer has addressed to the concerned Police Inspector naming thereon though prior to addressing such suicide notes, he had never complained as regard to any sort of harassment extended to him by the present respondents. He has further argued that even if the case of the prosecution may be believed to some extent then also there was quarrel between the complainant and the respondents with regard to children for which as per the complainant herself, the compromise was entered into and regarding the assault made by the deceased as well as again the criminal complaint came to be filed wherein also, they came to be arrested. In that view of the matter, the prosecution story in respect of forcing the deceased to compromise becomes unimaginable as the complaint was already lodged before about three months and the case was also registered before the competent Court of Visavadar and therefore also, the allegations are imaginary and becomes unbelievable. 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. 10. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Abhishek Joshi, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 11. 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. 12. In order to bring home the guilt on the part of the respondent, the prosecution has examined for about ten witnesses and tendered 17 documentary evidences. 13. 11. 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. 12. In order to bring home the guilt on the part of the respondent, the prosecution has examined for about ten witnesses and tendered 17 documentary evidences. 13. P.W No. 4 who is wife of deceased Heenaben Dineshbhai Ghediya has deposed that deceased Dinesh was her husband and he was serving as a helper at Visavadar and they were residing at Visavadar, G.E.B. Colony and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are neighbours. On 17.01.2002, the quarrel took place as regards to children amongst them for which, her husband lodged the complaint before the Gujarat Electricity Board. Thereafter, the respondent lodged Criminal Case against the complainant as well as the deceased. Thereafter, the complainant along with respondent no. 3 threatened to handover Rs. 50,000/- on 03.04.2002 for getting transferred from the place otherwise they will be killed. On 04.04.2002, her husband went for purchasing the vegetables and thereafter he did not return to the home but afterwards on 05.04.2002, his dead body was found in hanging condition nearby Sattadhar and her husband committed suicide due to the harassment from the respondents. Two chits were recovered from the clothes of the deceased which came to be seized as muddamal article no. 3 which came to be produced at exhibit 22 as well as one chit was also found from her house which came to be produced at exhibit 20. The chits were written by her husband. She lodged the complaint. In the cross examination, she has admitted that the quarrel took place in January, 2002 as regards to children for which on 18.01.2002, the respondent lodged the complaint wherein it was also alleged that the complainant as well as her husband were injured by biting. She has also admitted that the respondent Kapila lodged the complaint and thereafter till the death of her husband there was no complaint. She has also admitted that in the suicide note, the deceased has not stated that the respondent no. 3 was demanding Rs. 50,000/- and threatening them. 14. P.W No. 5 - Bharatbhai Shivlalbhai Ghediya who is brother of the deceased has deposed that his brother was serving as a helper in Gujarat Electricity Board. She has also admitted that in the suicide note, the deceased has not stated that the respondent no. 3 was demanding Rs. 50,000/- and threatening them. 14. P.W No. 5 - Bharatbhai Shivlalbhai Ghediya who is brother of the deceased has deposed that his brother was serving as a helper in Gujarat Electricity Board. On 04.04.2002, his brother did not return who had gone for purchasing vegetables so they waited at about 08:00 o'clock in the evening and thereafter, they informed Visavadar Police Station. Thereafter, they found the motorcycle of the deceased nearby Visavadar and thereafter, his dead body was also found nearby that place. One chit was found from the pocket of the deceased, wherein it was written that he committed suicide due to harassment extended by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Prior to the incident, the respondent used to demand Rs. 50,000/- for arriving at settlement. In the cross examination, he admitted that on 04.04.2002, 05.04.2002 and 07.04.2002, he did not mention in his statement as regard to demand of money for settlement as well as the respondent extended harassment to the deceased. He has also admitted that even before the police, he did not state that the respondent no. 3 demanded Rs. 50,000/- for entering into settlement. He has also admitted that his brother had never made complaint that due to any quarrel amongst them, he filed any complaint against them before the police. 15. P.W No. 8 - Shivlal Jamnadas who is father of the deceaed Dineshbhai has deposed that his son Dinesh was serving as a Helper in Gujarat Electricity Board at Visavadar and he was residing in G.E.B. Quarters at Visavadar. On 04.04.2002, he came to know that Dinesh is not traceable and thereafter, his dead body was found nearby Sattardhar. One chit was recovered from his pocket wherein it was written that the respondents namely Dinesh and Kapila harassed him due to which he committed suicide. The same chit was also recovered from his pocket wherein also similar writing was there. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he has not stated before the police that the same writing was there in both the chits. He has also admitted that he did not read the chit when it was recovered. 16. The same chit was also recovered from his pocket wherein also similar writing was there. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he has not stated before the police that the same writing was there in both the chits. He has also admitted that he did not read the chit when it was recovered. 16. P.W No. 9 - Bhanbhai Rambhai Mori who was serving as A.S.I. at Visavadar has deposed that he was in charge of Accidental Death No. 11/2002 and he investigated the same and recorded the complaint of the complainant on 07.04.2002 which is at exhibit 23. In the cross examination, he admitted that from 05.04.2002 to 07.04.2002, he did not draw any panchnama. He has also admitted that Mr. Zala investigated A.D. case and he received the papers wherein the statement of Bharatkumar Shivlal was there. He has also admitted that for about three months during accidental death investigation, no cognizable offence was revealed. 17. P.W No. 10 - Giriraj Ghanshyambhai has deposed that on 05.04.2002, he was serving as the Police Inspector in Visavadar Police Station. At that time, A.D. No. 11/2002 was registered in his police station and he was investigating the same. At that time, the dead body of the deceased was found in hanging condition in the forest area of Sattadhar and hanging dead body was taken on the land and panchnamas were carried out. One chit was also found out from the pocket of the deceased. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out by A.S.I. Mr. Bhanbhai Mori. He also recorded the statement of neighbours as well as others. In the cross examination, he has admitted that Rakesh Dolatrai Laklani who is relative of the deceased and press reporter. He recorded the statement of witnesses on 07.04.2002 to 09.04.2002 He has also admitted that he did not draw any panchnama in the house of the deceased. He has admitted that the statements of the neighbours of the deceased were not annexed in the charge-sheet. He has also admitted that the suicide notes having different handwritings were not signed by the deceased. Over and above the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution has also brought on the record the suicide notes at exhibit nos. 22 and 25 as under. Date:- 03.04.2002 To, The Police Inspector, Dinesh Ghediya Today, I am committing suicide due to unbearable torture of Vinu Thakar. Over and above the aforesaid oral evidence, the prosecution has also brought on the record the suicide notes at exhibit nos. 22 and 25 as under. Date:- 03.04.2002 To, The Police Inspector, Dinesh Ghediya Today, I am committing suicide due to unbearable torture of Vinu Thakar. The whole family of Vinu Thakar is responsible for it. I commit suicide due to torture caused by him. He is responsible for it. He frequently threatens to kill me. He forces me for not to lodge the police case and threatens me to kill if I go to lodge the case. Vinu Thakar and his wife are responsible for it. Dinesh Ghediya. As they beat my wife inside my home and threatened me, I commit suicide. The remaining all are innocent. He has threatened me to get me implicated in the lodged cases. Dinesh Ghediya. Date:- 04.04.2002 D.S. Ghediya It is not suicide but Vinu Thakar has forced me to commit suicide. 26/2 Vadher is on leave, D.E. To Vajabhai Respected Police Inspector, Today, I commit suicide. Vinu Thakar - 220 K.V. Vala is responsible for it. He has also caused extreme harassment to my wife. He frequently threatens me to kill and got up a false case. At the relevant time, he talked to withdraw the case by way of compromise. He agrees to withdraw the case in presence of all, but he threatens me whenever I am alone. Sir, he entered my home and his wife beat my wife, but I did not lodge the complaint, I lodged the complaint in my department. I have not lodged the complainant at the instance of my colleague. They beat me and lodged a false complaint and then also, they cause harassment. Vinu Thakar and his wife are responsible for it. You are requested to take action against them: Sir, I have not been sleeping from many days due to threatens given by him. D.S Ghediya. Exhibit No. 25 To, The Police Inspector, It is informed that, I Dinesh Ghediya commit suicide and Vinu Thakar is responsible for it. I commit suicide due to torture caused by him. He has lodged a false case against me. 18. On overall analysis of the aforesaid oral evidence of widow, father as well as brother of the deceased and on conjoint reading along with suicide notes at exhibit nos. I commit suicide due to torture caused by him. He has lodged a false case against me. 18. On overall analysis of the aforesaid oral evidence of widow, father as well as brother of the deceased and on conjoint reading along with suicide notes at exhibit nos. 22 and 25, it is clearly established that in the alleged suicide notes nothing is forthcoming against the respondent no. 3 and though as per the case of the prosecution, the alleged chits written by the deceased were not involving or not making any involvement against the present respondent no. 3 who threatened him to kill if he did not hand over Rs. 50,000/- to him in lieu of entering into compromise thereof as he is missing. That fact is also admitted by the witness. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence, the complainant as well as brother of the deceased and father of the deceased have wrongfully implicated the respondent no. 3 though the deceased himself has not narrated nothing against the respondent no. 3. On bare reading of oral evidence, the fact is revealing that there was a quarrel before about three months prior to the date of the incident and regarding the same, the complainant filed the complaint in the office of Gujarat Electricity Board where he was serving as well as before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Visavadar. Indisputably, the complaint was filed by the respondent no. 2 against the deceased as well as the complainant Heenaben as regards to quarrel took place on 17.01.2002 and that case was pending before the competent court, the complainant was the present respondent no. 2. In consequence whereof, the story brought by the prosecution that the complainant was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for entering into compromise appears to be concocted as the said case was lodged by the present respondent against the deceased as well as the complainant. Not only this but from the oral evidence of all the other witnesses, it is also emerging that they have made material improvements while deposing before the court though the witness did not mention before the police that the respondent nos. 1 and 3 demanded Rs. 50,000/- for entering into compromise however they stated before the court. The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses is not in consonance with the suicide notes which are at exhibit 22 and 25. 1 and 3 demanded Rs. 50,000/- for entering into compromise however they stated before the court. The evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses is not in consonance with the suicide notes which are at exhibit 22 and 25. The suicide notes though alleged to have been written by the deceased prior to commission of suicide did not contain anything as regards to threatening as well as demanding Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of entering compromise. As such, the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. Joshi as regards to when suicide notes at exhibit nos. 22 and 25 were written, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove contents of the aforesaid suicide notes as the prosecution did not obtain any handwriting expert opinion in order to prove the handwriting and authorship of the deceased over the suicide notes at exhibit 22 and 25. Not only that, even the Investigating Officer has admitted in the cross examination that in all the three chits, the handwritings were of the different persons. In that view of the matter, the evidence of suicide note at exhibit nos. 22 and 25 itself becomes doubtful. Consequently, the learned trial court has not rightly relied upon the aforesaid suicide notes. Even evidence of the aforesaid three witnesses also suffers from material improvements and contradictions and also inconsistent and even it may be believed that there was quarrel as regards to the children of the complainant and the respondents then also the said incident occurred before three months prior to the commission of suicide and thereafter, as admitted by the witnesses, there was no any sort of complaint during these three months and regarding the incident occurred before about three months prior to the incident and the complaints were filed by the complainant and respondents both and that proceeding was initiated before the Criminal Court. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any approximate cause that drove the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the oral evidence of three witnesses as well as the evidence of suicide notes in its proper perspective and rightly recorded the findings which call for no interference. 19. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any approximate cause that drove the deceased to commit suicide. The learned Trial Court has elaborately dealt with the oral evidence of three witnesses as well as the evidence of suicide notes in its proper perspective and rightly recorded the findings which call for no interference. 19. 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 306 read with section 114 of IPC. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands canceled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.