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 9.8.2004 rendered by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 132 of 1999. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that since the sister-in-law (elder brother's wife) of the complainant was admitted in the hospital due to delivery of a child, the complainant had stayed in the hospital on 28.3.1999, at that time, Manjula, deceased wife of the complainant had told the complainant that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were using abusive language and they told the deceased that she had illicit relations with respondent No. 3, but the complainant ignored the same. It is alleged that on 29.3.1999 at about 12.30 pm, the complainant was informed by one cook of PTC Quarters named Bhagvanji Jivraj that Manjula - wife of the complainant had burnt and she was brought to the hospital by him. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. L.R Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that though the complainant i.e husband of the deceased as well as other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and even the dying declaration at Exh.28 clearly links the respondents with the crime in question, learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondents accused. 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 respondent is required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Harshad Patel, 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. Patel further submitted that no lady in Indian society would name the real brother and father involving in the act which is in the nature of keeping illicit relation with his brother and father and by no stretch of imagination the act of the present respondents can be said to be an act of instigation to commit suicide by deceased Manjula. He further argued that evidence of the husband of the deceased is hearsay in nature and appears to have been concocted after the incident and not only that, the evidence of the son of the deceased is suffering from vice of improvement. He argued that the son of the deceased is juvenile witness and his evidence is rightly not believed in toto by learned trial Court. He argued that so far as dying declaration at Exh.28 is concerned, though the same has been recorded by the Executive Magistrate, but while recording such dying declaration, the Executive Magistrate has not obtained mental fitness certificate though it is mentioned in the dying declaration that she was conscious, but that is not sufficient considering 100% burnt injuries. He argued that so far as dying declaration at Exh.28 is concerned, though the same has been recorded by the Executive Magistrate, but while recording such dying declaration, the Executive Magistrate has not obtained mental fitness certificate though it is mentioned in the dying declaration that she was conscious, but that is not sufficient considering 100% burnt injuries. He argued that as per the evidence of other witnesses, the deceased was screaming in pain and she remained unconscious. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.R Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution version, on 28.3.1999 while the complainant was in the hospital to attend his sister-in-law who was admitted for delivery of child, at that time, deceased Manjula was alone at home and at that time, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 abused her by saying that she is keeping relation with Rakesh as well as her father. Prior thereto, for about 3 - 4 days from the date of incident, while the deceased had gone for answering call of nature, at that time, respondent No. 3 caught hold her from behind, due to which, she poured kerosene over her person and committed suicide and thereby the respondents have committed the offence punishable under sections 323, 306, 504 read with section 114 of IPC. 8.1 Learned trial Court has acquitted the present respondents from the offence punishable under sections 306 and 504 read with section 114 of IPC, however, the respondents have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and inflicted punishment thereof. 8.2 This Court has also considered the entire material on record, more particularly, evidence of complainant PW 5 - Shivdanbhai Rambhai who has deposed that he is residing in quarter No. 11 of PTC along with her wife and son. The said has also deposed that his wife Manjula, a day prior to the incident, has appraised him that respondent Nos. The said has also deposed that his wife Manjula, a day prior to the incident, has appraised him that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are abusing her and saying her that she is keeping illicit relation with her brother and father. He further deposed that while the deceased was brought in the hospital, at that time, he asked her and in turn, she said that she poured kerosene as respondent No. 3 outraged her modesty and she was threatened by respondent No. 3. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that deceased Manjula got burn injuries over her body, due to which, she was shouting for help as she was paining. The witness also admitted that there are staff quarters situated nearby his quarter. The witness also admitted that he has never complained as regards to the conduct of respondent No. 3. 8.3 PW 6 - Bhagwanjibhai Jivrajbhai has deposed that on being hearing shouting in the house of the complainant, he had gone; at that time, Manjula was rescued and she was taken to the hospital. The witness deposed that at that time, Manjula said that there was some quarrel with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as they were saying her that she is keeping illicit relation with his brother and father. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that due to burn injuries and pain, Manjula was not in a position to speak. In the cross examination of this witness, improvements have been brought on record. 8.4 PW 8 - Mukeshbhai Shivdasbhai who is son of the deceased has deposed that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were saying that her mother is keeping illicit relation with her brother and father and, therefore, his mother has committed suicide. In the cross examination of this witness, certain improvements have been brought on record as regards to involving the present respondents in the crime in question. 8.5 The dying declaration is at Exh.28 wherein it is stated that “Dulhaniyaben is aged about 30 years who is neighbour and residing in the quarter situated beside to us. Gudiben is also residing beside to us. Because of their harassment and quarrel with me, I sprinkled kerosene and sustained burnt injuries when I was alone in the house. The children have gone out for fetching water. My husband went to the hospital as my elder sister-in-law was in the hospital. Gudiben is also residing beside to us. Because of their harassment and quarrel with me, I sprinkled kerosene and sustained burnt injuries when I was alone in the house. The children have gone out for fetching water. My husband went to the hospital as my elder sister-in-law was in the hospital. I have no difference of opinion with my husband or in-laws. The neighbours have took me to the hospital.” 8.6 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that there appears no uniformity in the evidence of the husband of the deceased i.e complainant. A conjoint reading of the dying declaration at Exh.28, it appears that she is involving respondent No. 2 due to quarrel. However, from the oral evidence of the husband of the deceased as well as son and other witnesses, it emerges that as the deceased was scolded by the husband regarding her keeping of illicit relation with the brother and father of respondent No. 2, due to which, she committed suicide, the said story is not forthcoming from the aforesaid dying declaration. Even otherwise also, the evidence of the husband, son and other witnesses suffers from the vice of material contradictions as well as improvements. 8.7 On overall evaluation of the evidence on record, it appears that even if the deceased has been scolded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for keeping illicit relation with the brother and father of respondent No. 2, then by saying of that thing, by no stretch of imagination can be believed to be instigation as defined under section 107 of IPC as no lady in Indian society would say the words which are involving her own brother and father for keeping illicit relation with a woman. Even otherwise also, in the dying declaration, from the mouth of the deceased, the said facts are not coming forward. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has recorded the findings and rightly come to the conclusion acquitting the present respondents which calls for no interference by this Court. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.