JUDGMENT : R.P DHOLARIA, J. 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 28.6.2004 rendered by learned Joint District Judge and 5th Fast Track Judge, Nadiad in Sessions Case No. 124 of 2003. 2. Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 2005 is preferred by the original complainant against the above referred impugned judgment and order. 3. As the common question of law and facts are involved in both these matters, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 4. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal and revision application are that prior to 11 months of the incident, marriage of elder daughter of the complainant i.e. Bharti took place with accused No. 1 and after the marriage, she was residing in a joint family. It is alleged that initially six months, the deceased stayed with her in-laws but thereafter she along with husband started living separately at Oad village. It is alleged that in-laws taunted the deceased very badly and they were uttering bad words regarding her character and, thereby they were insulting the deceased. It is alleged that accused No. 1 used to go to meet his mother and sister and on return, he used to utter bad words to the deceased. It is alleged that on 29.1.2003 one Kanubhai Parmar, landlord of the rented premises by the deceased and accused No. 1 made phone call to the complainant and informed that his daughter has committed suicide after consuming poison. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 5. 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. 6. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 7. 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. 8. 7. 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. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal and the complainant has preferred the Criminal Revision Application before this Court. 9. 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. 10. 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 though suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37 are involving the present respondents as well as oral evidence of the father - PW 2, mother and aunt Kailash is clearly indicating the role of each one of the respondents, learned trial Court did not believe the same and recorded the finding that the oral evidence as well as suicide notes are contradictory to each other. He argued that suicide notes are required to be read in consonance with the oral evidence as well as allegations made as regards to the character of the deceased which was doubted by the respondents. He argued that though the deceased was residing separately with her husband, but on 27.1.2003 the parents of the deceased as well as respondents met where the quarrel took place and as narrated in their depositions, the deceased was harassed by the respondents and that is direct proximate cause to commit suicide. He argued that after the quarrel on 27.1.2003, the deceased has committed suicide on 29.1.2003 and there must have occurred something which promoted deceased Bharti to commit suicide. Alternatively, Mr. He argued that after the quarrel on 27.1.2003, the deceased has committed suicide on 29.1.2003 and there must have occurred something which promoted deceased Bharti to commit suicide. Alternatively, Mr. Pujari, learned APP has argued that taking into consideration the suicide notes, the case is clearly established against the respondent No. 1 if the Court is not believing the role of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for the incident of 27.1.2003 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. 11. On the other-hand, Mr. Y.V Vaghela, learned advocate for the original complainant in Criminal Revision Application No. 131 of 2005 has argued that learned trial Court has recorded perverse findings and when two suicide notes are proved in accordance with law, the same are clearly indicating the guilt on the part of the respondents and learned trial Court could have believed the oral evidence of all the three witnesses as well as aforesaid both the suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37. In support of his arguments, Mr. Vaghela has relied upon the judgment in the case of Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2015 (1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 909. In paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court has observed thus : “8. First, we shall deal with the facet whether the view expressed by the learned trial Judge was a plausible one and did not warrant interference by the High Court. It is well settled in law that if the view expressed is plausible one, the High Court should not interfere. However, if there is improper appreciation of evidence or manifest error on record, non-consideration of evidence which have materially affected the verdict, definitely the appellate court has jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the judgment of acquittal. As we perceive, the expert opinion was that two letters were written by the deceased, one virtually did not contain anything and, therefore, on that score no fault could be found with the learned trial Judge. As far as the letter exhibit PW-13.A is concerned, the same has immense significance. The High Court has translated the contents of the said letter which is admissible in evidence, but for unexplained reasons, the trial Judge ignored it. As far as the letter exhibit PW-13.A is concerned, the same has immense significance. The High Court has translated the contents of the said letter which is admissible in evidence, but for unexplained reasons, the trial Judge ignored it. The High Court has perused the contents of the letter and come to hold that the factum of ill treatment and cruelty that was metered out to wife, had been established and, therefore, she was compelled to commit suicide. To satisfy ourselves, we have scrutinized the letter and we have found that the letter has been written by the daughter to the father in an agonised tone, expressing the torture, the taunt, the sufferings and the trauma that she had undergone. She has also indicated that the life had become unbearable and she was not able to sustain the life and was likely to invite death at any point of time. The said letter was written two months prior to the death. Once we do not accept the innovative submission pertaining to accidental death and there is oral evidence which gets support from the documentary evidence, the letter written by the wife, the only inevitable and irresistible conclusion is that the prosecution has proved the offence to the hilt and, therefore, we do not find any error in the conclusion recorded by the High Court.” 12. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, Mr. Vaghela has urged that the entire findings recorded by learned trial Court is perverse and learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral evidence as well as aforesaid two suicide notes in its proper perspective. Lastly, he has urged to reverse the impugned judgment and order. 13. Mr. M.C Barot, 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. Barot further submitted that oral evidence of the three witnesses i.e. parents as well as aunt Kailash is contradictory to suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37. He argued that the suicide notes alleged to have been written in one sitting soon before the commission of the suicide wherein the deceased has involved only respondent No. 1 - her husband and no whisper at all has been made in the suicide notes as regards to other respondents. He argued that the suicide notes alleged to have been written in one sitting soon before the commission of the suicide wherein the deceased has involved only respondent No. 1 - her husband and no whisper at all has been made in the suicide notes as regards to other respondents. He argued that all the aforesaid three witnesses were wrongly implicated the respondents into crime in question by concocting their theory and, therefore, entire case of the prosecution may not be believed. He argued that even suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37 may be believed to be true, in conjoint reading of the cross examination, the evidence coming from the cross examination of the parents clearly established that the deceased was not happy with the respondent husband as the respondent husband was also keeping relation with the parents though the deceased denied the husband to meet with his parents, the husband used to swear in false oath and was meeting with his parents, due to which, the deceased was getting harassment and as the husband has lost trustworthiness, she committed suicide, that itself is not constituting any offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 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. 14. This Court has heard Mr. L.R Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State, Mr. Vaghela, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mr. M.C Barot, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 15. 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, deceased Bharti got married with Sanjay respondent No. 1 on 17.2.2002 and after the marriage, the respondents in abetment with one another, used to harass the deceased by saying that she is blackish, prostitute and her father is impotent, due to which, the deceased has committed suicide on 29.1.2003 by consuming poison and, thereby the respondents committed the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. 16. PW 1 - Dr. 16. PW 1 - Dr. Umiyaben Pipaliya has deposed that on 30.1.2003 she was serving as Medical Officer and she carried out autopsy over the dead body of Bharti and the cause of death is found to be poisoning due to aluminium phosfide. In view of the deposition of PW 1, death of the deceased is established as suicide. 17. PW 2 - Girdharbhai Mohanbhai Rathod who is father of the deceased has deposed that he is serving as Organizer in the Mid-day Meal at Vallabh Vidyanagar School. The witness stated that as daughter Bharti got married with Sanjay on 17.2.2002, initially, she was residing with her husband and in-laws at Lambhvel. The witness has stated that his daughter was serving and his daughter and her husband were residing at Anand and that Sanjay was also serving with RTO Agent at Anand and therefore, they also residing at Khambholaj and thereafter they were residing at Oad village since last six months. The witness stated that her daughter was pregnant and as to where her delivery is to be carried out, for that purpose, they were called by the respondent Sanjay on 27.1.2003 and, therefore, parents as well as witness Kailash went at the place of the respondent No. 1 at Oad, at that time, the respondents were present and they took quarrel and his daughter is described as prostitute in his presence and he was described as impotent. The witness stated that thereafter on 29.1.2003 he received the information that his daughter has committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance and, therefore, he visited again at village Oad wherein his daughter was lying on the cot from where two suicide notes were found by the police wherein handwriting of the suicide notes were of her daughter. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that on 27.1.2003 when he visited deceased Bharti along with his wife, at that time, the deceased told him that when her husband visits the parents, parents used to instigate the husband against her, due to which, she has denied the husband to visit his parents and she had disliked his visit to his parents. The witness further admitted that his daughter stated to him that respondent No. 1 is going to meet his parents and yet the husband of his daughter was telling on oath falsely and, therefore, there was mental torture to his daughter. The witness further admitted that his daughter stated to him that respondent No. 1 is going to meet his parents and yet the husband of his daughter was telling on oath falsely and, therefore, there was mental torture to his daughter. The witness also admitted that for about last six months, his daughter as well as his son-in-law were residing separately from other family members and the deceased was frequently visiting him along with her husband. The witness also admitted that there were necessary household items like TV, fridge etc. The witness also admitted that he knows rickshaw owner Bhagabhai Girdharbhai and deceased Bharti used to travel through his rickshaw and there was relation like brother and sister between the said rickshaw owner and his daughter and his daughter was believing Bhagabhai as his brother. The witness denied that the deceased was having love relation with Bhagabhai. The witness also denied that due to which, they have visited on 27.1.2003 the deceased as well as the respondents. 18. PW 3 - Premilaben Girdharbhai Rathod who is mother of deceased Bharti has deposed in the similar line to that of PW 2. In her cross examination, the witness has admitted that deceased Bharti did not like as regards to meeting of respondent No. 1 to his parents and she denied him to meet his parents, though by taking false oath, respondent No. 1 used to meet his parents. The witness also admitted that she along with her husband visited the deceased as well as her son-in-law on 27.1.2003 at village Oad and she stayed there upto 28.1.2003 evening and till then, the deceased did not say that she is going to commit suicide. The witness also admitted that on 29.1.2003 she telephoned Bharti, at that time, she was alone at home and respondent No. 1 was on duty and respondent No. 1 arrived at home after her reaching there along with Vaishali at village Oad. PW 4 - Kailashben Zaverbhai Rathod who is aunt of the deceased has also deposed in the similar line to that of PW 3. 19. PW 9 - Manoharbhai Mohandas Taheliyani who is the Assistant Examiner of the documents in question who has issued expert opinion over the writing came to be produced vide Exhs.17 and 37 and as per his opinion, the aforesaid documents were found to be in the handwriting of deceased Bharti. 20. 19. PW 9 - Manoharbhai Mohandas Taheliyani who is the Assistant Examiner of the documents in question who has issued expert opinion over the writing came to be produced vide Exhs.17 and 37 and as per his opinion, the aforesaid documents were found to be in the handwriting of deceased Bharti. 20. Defence has also examined two witnesses. DW No. 1 - Kiranbhai Vishnuprasad Thakar who was working as Manager of Samir Enterprise wherein respondent No. 3 - Mamta was working as Clerk; he came along with the muster roll dated 27.1.2003 to 29.1.2003 wherein the presence of respondent No. 3 - Mamta is marked from 8.15 am to 5.30 pm. DW No. 2 - Kanubhai Nanabhai Parmar, who is landlord of the premises wherein deceased Bharti as well as husband Sanjay were residing as tenant on the upper floor of his house, has deposed that respondent Sanjay used to leave home at 7.30 am and arrived at home at about 8.30 pm, whereas deceased Bharti used to leave for job at 9.00 am. The witness deposed that for about three days prior to the incident, health of deceased Bharti was not well, due to which, her parents and sister visited her. The witness also deposed that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had not visited deceased 2 - 3 days prior to the incident. 21. Over and above the aforesaid oral evidence, documentary evidence in the nature of suicide notes are also produced at Exhs.17 and 37 which were left by the deceased soon before her death which were found by the panchas and handwriting as well as contents came to be proved by the prosecution. Translated copy of Exhs.17 and 37 are extracted below. “The letter of exhibit no. 37 is as under:- Respected pappa, mummy and Vaishali, my remembrance to all. I am unable to take decision about my life - what should I do? Where should I go? I trusted a person, who betrayed me. My husband is everything for me. I never thought even in a dream that my life partner would deceive me and betray me. I do not understand as to how I would live with this person. How can I again trust this person, who falsely swears to his wife. Where should I go? I trusted a person, who betrayed me. My husband is everything for me. I never thought even in a dream that my life partner would deceive me and betray me. I do not understand as to how I would live with this person. How can I again trust this person, who falsely swears to his wife. How can I trust this person, who falsely swears to not only his wife, but also his child, who is still to be born. He would definitely share whatever has taken place. He would definitely tell me as to what my parents told him. When the person, who was telling that there is no one except you for me in this world, deceives me, I cannot bear it. He says that you told that if I go from here today, you all will be harassed. Therefore, I restrained myself otherwise he would have left home with clothes. There is no feeling in his heart for me. I am in such a condition that I cannot take decision. Despite that, if I take extreme step, cause of my death would be only my husband because he has deceived me. He has betrayed me. The relations between husband and wife rest on trust. How can I live now? This is my last letter, but I request you, pappa that even if I take extreme step, forgive my husband; do not take any action against these people. Whatever has been written in my destiny may happen, but do not harass my in-laws. Please fulfill the last wish of your daughter - forgive these people. Our goddess will punish them. One more thing is that you do not mourn after my death. When my destiny does not favour, who will be responsible? I cannot live in the absence of trust. Therefore, I have adopted this way. I request you to take care of my mother. If I take extreme step, she will grieve a lot. Do not get angry upon her from now. She is very unhappy and I make her more unhappy. But, you behave in such a way that she may not feel offended, then only my soul will rest in peace. Please give lots of solace to Vaishali. She will be left alone. But, she will have to muster up courage. Do not get angry upon her from now. She is very unhappy and I make her more unhappy. But, you behave in such a way that she may not feel offended, then only my soul will rest in peace. Please give lots of solace to Vaishali. She will be left alone. But, she will have to muster up courage. Now, I have no courage, and therefore, I take this step. Please give Rs. 200/- to Sanjay for nephew because I had said that I would give, but I am going. Therefore, you give. I again say that you forgive him. Do not take any action against them. I have never spoiled your reputation. My funeral procession should be taken out from my matrimonial home. You have brought me up with fondness and never made me unhappy. The letter of exhibit no. 17 is as under:- I do not want to bother you. Whatever was written in my destiny had happened. There is no fault of anyone therein. When my destiny is against me, what will anyone do? You got my marriage solemnized choosing best life partner, but destiny was not in my favour. What should I do? I got married to the person, who has betrayed me. Therefore, how can I live? All will be pained a lot due to my such conduct. I know that suicide is a sin, but I am ready to commit this sin because if I do not take this step today, I will have to live lifeless life. I want to bring an end to my life. I apologize to all. If anyone has been hurt by my conduct during the span of my life, please forgive me. I feel pain while taking this step and leaving all of you. But, I have taken this decision. Now, it is worthless to live. Your loving daughter, Bharti. Note:- Please forgive my in-laws that is my last desire, pappa. Do not lodge a police complaint against them and do not behave in a such manner that they may get harassed. I love Sanjay very much and he has betrayed me. I take this extreme step, but forgive him also. He is very good person and imbued with the spirit of service. As I could not become like him, forgive him. I love Sanjay very much and he has betrayed me. I take this extreme step, but forgive him also. He is very good person and imbued with the spirit of service. As I could not become like him, forgive him. Please do take care of mummy and also tell Vaishali and Kalpana bhabhi to take care of mummy. You also never get angry upon mummy. Please consider my request. Hope, you will fulfill my words, pappa. Please forgive me you, all. I wanted to bring reputation of my family, but no one could understand me. I was left alone. Do not weep pappa, mummy and Vaishali. Do not mourn on my death. Whatever is destined by Almighty will definitely take place. Therefore, do not mourn on my death.” 22. As per the prosecution case, the respondents used to taunt her as blackish, prostitute and uttering such words, the respondents subjected her cruelty, due to which, she was fed up and committed suicide on 29.1.2003 at about 17.00 hours, while the respondent No. 1-husband of the deceased was on duty leaving two suicide notes, as noted above, at Exhs.17 and 37. 23. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution case rests on the oral evidence of the parents, aunt of deceased Bharti as well as above mentioned two suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid suicide notes along with the oral evidence of the above mentioned three witnesses i.e. parents and aunt, the fact is clearly emerging that though the deceased has committed suicide soon after writing the aforesaid two suicide notes, the same is not involving respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the crime in question. The deceased has held responsible only the husband - respondent No. 1 as he breached the trust reposed in him by the deceased as respondent No. 1 was prevented by the deceased from meeting his parents, though by taking false oath, he used to meet his parents and thereby respondent No. 1 lost the trust of deceased Bharti, due to which, she has committed suicide. This fact is precisely emerging out from the aforesaid two suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37. 24. This fact is precisely emerging out from the aforesaid two suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37. 24. On plain reading of the aforesaid suicide notes, nothing specific is coming out except respondent No. 1 lost the trust reposed by deceased Bharti, that is, precise narration as regards to what sort of trust was reposed in respondent No. 1 by deceased Bharti and the same is also emerging out from the cross examination of the parents of the deceased wherein they have specifically admitted that the deceased did not like meeting of respondent No. 1 with his parents as the deceased was carrying impression that parents of respondent No. 1 were instigating him, due to which, they were residing separately since last six months at the distance place at village Oad, though the deceased used to meet her parents. 25. A conjoint reading of suicide notes along with the oral evidence raises certain issues as in the suicide notes, except breach of trust, no allegation against the husband is forthcoming and suicide notes are not involving other respondents except the husband - respondent No. 1. So far as involvement of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is concerned, parents as well as aunt have deposed that they were present in the meeting dated 27.1.2003 at village Oad, at that time, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have also uttered the aforesaid words and thereby they have also aided and instigated. However, the same is not coming forth from the suicide notes as the suicide notes are directly coming from the mouth of the deceased herself and she has not whispered or uttered a single word against the said respondents and even the presence of the said respondents is also not being established from other evidence as the landlord himself has admitted that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were not present in the meeting on 27.1.2003 Learned trial Court has elaborately dealt with this issue and recorded the finding that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were not present and in consequence thereof, it is the result of false implication by the parents as well as aunt of the deceased in their oral depositions which is not getting corroboration or any support from the suicide notes as well as other evidence on record. 26. 2 to 4 were not present and in consequence thereof, it is the result of false implication by the parents as well as aunt of the deceased in their oral depositions which is not getting corroboration or any support from the suicide notes as well as other evidence on record. 26. On overall examination of the evidence of the parents as well as aunt of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to believe their evidence for the simple reason that their evidence is not in conformity with the recital revealing from the suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37 as the suicide notes have direct result of action on the part of deceased Bharti who has not named respondent Nos. 2 to 4, though the parents in order to rope entire family members named respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as if they were taunting the deceased and subjecting cruelty to her by addressing her blackish and prostitute which words are not revealing from the suicide notes. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court has rightly not believed the evidence of the parents as well as aunt. It is well settled in law that if the view expressed is plausible one, the High Court should not interfere. However, if there is improper appreciation of evidence or manifest error on record, non-consideration of evidence which have materially affected the verdict, definitely the appellate court has jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the judgment of acquittal. 27. In view of the aforesaid position, the entire case of the prosecution now rests upon the aforesaid two suicide notes at Exhs.17 and 37. On perusal of the suicide notes, as narrated above, only grievance the deceased was subsisting is as regards to breach of trust by respondent No. 1 - her husband as he used to remain in touch with his parents though the deceased refrained him to do so and thereby respondent No. 1 committed breach of trust. On perusal of the suicide notes, as narrated above, only grievance the deceased was subsisting is as regards to breach of trust by respondent No. 1 - her husband as he used to remain in touch with his parents though the deceased refrained him to do so and thereby respondent No. 1 committed breach of trust. If we may evaluate the aforesaid suicide notes in light of the provisions of the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, whether such behaviour on the part of respondent No. 1 though he was refrained from meeting his parents but used to meet them after taking false oath that he is not meeting them, amounts to abetment or incitement to commit suicide by deceased Bharti. Section 107 of IPC reads as under. “Section 107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First.- Instigates any person to do that think; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing”. 28. The aforesaid section 107 of IPC defines abetment to mean that a person abets doing of a thing if he firstly instigates any person to do that thing or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 29. Admittedly, on going through the aforesaid two suicide notes, nowhere anything reveals that any act on the part of respondent No. 1 has put deceased Bharti in a condition that may amounts to instigation to her to commit suicide. 29. Admittedly, on going through the aforesaid two suicide notes, nowhere anything reveals that any act on the part of respondent No. 1 has put deceased Bharti in a condition that may amounts to instigation to her to commit suicide. At the most, as alleged by her, respondent No. 1 had committed breach of trust reposed in him and if the same may be believed to be true, then also, the question arises for determination whether in spite of her refusal to meet the parents, respondent No. 1 used to meet his parents by taking false oath would amount to illegal omission on the part of the respondent No. 1 and on that count, the things are required to be appreciated that the marriage is institution wherein the persons are getting married in order to constitute the family as well as society and the marriage does not imply that the husband after the marriage has to give up entire relationship with the parents as well as his sister and other family members. On the contrary, after the marriage, it is bounden duty of the wife also to keep cordial relation not only with the parents of the husband but with other relatives of the husband also. Here, in the present case, as admitted by the parents of deceased Bharti, the deceased did not like meeting of her husband with his parents and though he used to meet, the deceased felt that it is a breach of trust reposed by her in respondent No. 1. This aspect by itself cannot be termed to be either act of instigation, incitement or illegal omission on the part of the respondents. On the contrary, on reading of the aforesaid suicide notes in its entirety, it is clear indicative of the fact that respondent No. 1 husband is serviceable and no action against him or any other person is to be taken as the deceased was fed up with her life. In this view of the matter, the contents of the aforesaid suicide notes are not falling within the purview of section 107 of IPC and no provisions of section 498-A or section 306 read with section 114 of IPC could be attracted. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 30. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. In the result, the appeal as well as the revision, both fail and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.