JUDGMENT : R.P DHOLARIA, J. 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 25/01/2005 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2002 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ranchhodbhai Devjibhai Patel who is resident of Selod of Jhagadia Taluka, Bharuch filed a complaint stating that on 28/11/2000 his sister Kapila, present respondent-original accused and Vaishali who is minor daughter of Kapila came to his residence as guest. That thereafter the respondent-accused left Kapila there and went away with minor girl Vaishali. That Kapila informed the complainant that the respondent-accused is doubting her character and, therefore, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. That respondent-accused very often asked her to leave her matrimonial house and told her that he would never call her back and also told her to die as well as gave threat that he would see her brother and sister-in-law. That the complainant gave solace to Kapila. Due to all such problems, on 09/12/2000, Kapila committed suicide by pouring kerosene over herself and set on fire and ultimately succumbed to burn injuries on 13/12/2000. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jhagadia. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Additional Sessions Jude and Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 12 of 2002. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 3. To prove the case against the present respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined about fifteen witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 4. The trial was initiated against the respondent. 3. To prove the case against the present respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined about fifteen witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 25/01/2005. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 6. This Court has heard Mr. L.R Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. M.R Bukhari, learned advocate with Mr. S.K Bukhari, learned advocate for the respondent. 7. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that though dying declarations before the police as well as Executive Magistrate were available on record and the allegations leveled are getting corroboration from the evidence of near relatives and the complainant, the learned trial court has wrongly not believed the same and wrongly acquitted the accused as such. It is contended by learned APP 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 respondent. Learned APP has taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also contended by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary eidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code which requires to be reversed as such and the accused is required to be convicted. 8. On the contrary, Mr. M.R. Bukhari, learned advocate with Mr. 8. On the contrary, Mr. M.R. Bukhari, learned advocate with Mr. S.K. Bukhari, learned advocate for the respondent supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and has argued that the dying declarations before the Executive Magistrate is revealing in two parts. In the first part, the deceased herself has described the incident as accidental and in the second part, she is involving her husband stating that due to subjecting her to cruelty by her husband, she tried to commit suicide. In the second dying declaration also, she has reiterated same thing and further more added that respondent was doubting her character and due to which he used to subject her to cruelty. Further, he has argued that before recording said dying declarations, neither the police nor the Executive Magistrate have obtained certificate of mental and physical fitness of deceased Kapila as such and therefore, no reliance could be placed upon such dying declarations. He has further argued that only the brother, sister-in-law and mother supported the case of the prosecution. However, the prosecution has not examined any neighbours as well as two children. In that view of the matter, learned trial court has rightly not placed reliance upon the evidence of near relatives. In absence of getting corroboration with the evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial court has rightly recorded findings of the acquittal which does not require any interference by this Court. 9. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as paper book and evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State and learned advocate for the respondent. 10. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties to the present proceedings and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, as per the prosecution version, it clearly reveals that the deceased Kapila got married with the present respondent for about 15 years prior to the incident and out of their wedlock, two children namely Sailesh and Vaishali aged about 14 years and 13 years were born. As the respondent was doubting character of the deceased Kapila for about two years and due to which he used to subject her to cruelty, she committed suicide on 09/12/2000 by pouring kerosene over herself and set on fire and thereby the respondent has committed offence punishable under Section 498 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. PW-3 Ranchhodbhai Devjibhai who is the original complainant and brother of deceased Kapila has deposed that her sister got married with the respondent for about 15 years prior to the incident. On 28/11/2000, respondent came along with Kapila to his house and he left his house by leaving the deceased Kapila at his place and thereafter deceased Kapila apprised him that respondent was doubting her character and beating her as well as constantly and continuously subjecting her to cruelty due to which on 09/12/2000, at about 9:45 hours in the morning, she poured kerosene over herself and set on fire and ultimately, she succumbed to burn injuries on 13/12/2000. In the cross examination, he has admitted that her sister used to visit his house along with her husband frequently. He has also admitted that after the incident, in the hospital, she was unconsciousland she was not in a position to speak. He has also admitted that she did not inform anything to the doctor and he had not informed to doctor regarding the incident. He has also admitted that for all the three days, she was unconscious. He has also admitted that after death of Kapila, her dead body was taken by the respondents for post death ceremony though she died at his home. 12. PW-6 Dhanuben Ranchhodbhai has deposed in similar lines in which her husband deposed. PW-8 Haribhai Devjibhai Patel has also deposed in similar lines in which the complainant has deposed. PW-9 Jadiben Devjibhai Patel who is mother of the deceased has also deposed in similar lines in which the complainant has deposed. 13. Over and above aforesaid oral evidence, the dying declarations at Exh.26 and Exh.36 are there. Exh.26 is the statement recorded by PW-10 Arvindbhai Punabhai - Head Constable of Jhagadia Police Station wherein she has stated that on 28/11/2000, his husband along with her daughter came over to Selod as guest at her parental home. Thereafter after staying for some time, her husband left her there and went away along with Vaishali to his home. Exh.26 is the statement recorded by PW-10 Arvindbhai Punabhai - Head Constable of Jhagadia Police Station wherein she has stated that on 28/11/2000, his husband along with her daughter came over to Selod as guest at her parental home. Thereafter after staying for some time, her husband left her there and went away along with Vaishali to his home. Her husband was doubting her character for about last three years and due to which he used to beat her and left her at the parental home due to which she poured kerosene over herself and set on fire. Dying declaration at Exh.36 came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate, Bharuch on 09/12/2000 in between 15:15 to 16:15 hours wherein she has stated that today at between 10:00 to 11:30 while she was at home along with her mother, at that time, she felt cold due to which she was being seated in the sunlight and thereafter she felt giddiness due to which she had gone nearby stove and while she was lightening the stove, accidentally her sari caught fire and due to which she got burned. In the second part, she narrated that her husband continuously subjected her to cruelty and beat her due to which she got fed up and has taken such action of suicide and at that time, none was present except her mother. 14. Panchnama of scene of incident came to be drawn by the Investigating Agency in between 12:00 to 12:15 on 09/12/2000 wherein the place of incident is shown by the complainant Ranchhodbhai himself and he has described the place of incident. The place was shown by Ranchhodbhai and furthermore he described in presence of panchas that due to stove, she got fire burns. Except the stove, nothing was found from the place of incident. 15. On overall evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, indisputably the evidence of the complainant Ranchhodbhai who is brother of deceased as well as his wife and her mother are not in consonance so far as the fact came to be revealed by the complainant himself while drawing the panchnama of scene of incident taken place at his own house on 09/12/2000 wherein the complainant himself has described the incident as accidental as sari of the deceased accidentally caught fire and due to which she sustained burn injuries. After about five days from the date of incident, the complainant has narrated as if the present respondent was doubting her character for about last two years and due to which she was left at her parental home and due to which she committed suicide. 16. On conjoint reading of the evidences with the dying declarations at Exh.36, panchnama of scene of the incident as well as the oral deposition of the complainant, the facts are revealing contrary to each other. Panchnama of scene of incident at the instance of the complainant came to be drawn soon after the incident at his own house clearly indicates that sari of the deceased accidentally caught fire. The same fact is also getting revealed from the first part of the declaration at Exh.36 However, in the second part of the dying declaration at Exh.36, the story is getting revealed that the respondent was doubting her character and subjecting her to cruelty and due to which she committed suicide. 17. On overall analysis of the oral evidence as well as dying declaration, the fact is clearly revealing that indisputably the incident occurred at the parental home and for about last ten days she was residing with the complainant at her parental home whereas two minor children were residing with the respondent. There also appears no uniformity in the dying declaration. Even the evidence is not getting support from the other corroborative evidence. Not only that but from the cross examination of the Executive Magistrate, it is established that before writing such dying declaration, mental and physical fitness certificate was not obtained from the treating doctor and the mother as well as brother of deceased Kapila have stated in their evidence that the deceased was unconscious since catching fire till her death and she was not in a position to speak. In that view of the matter, the dying declarations also lost its truthfulness as they are not recorded after obtaining certificate of mental and physical fitness from the treating doctor. The learned trial court, while appreciating the evidence on record, has recorded the findings assigning the reasons. The prosecution has not examined the neighbours as well as independent witnesses as well as two children of the deceased. The learned trial court, while appreciating the evidence on record, has recorded the findings assigning the reasons. The prosecution has not examined the neighbours as well as independent witnesses as well as two children of the deceased. In that view of the matter, no reliance can be placed upon such dying declaration as well as oral evidence which is contrary to the evidence of the complainant qua the description made while drawing panchnama of scene of incident on the date of incident. 18. For the reasons recorded as above, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him which calls for no interference by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. This Court find that the findings recorded by the 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 the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Accordingly, present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 19. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.