JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order dated 24.01.1996 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 335 of 1995, whereby the original accused No. 1 came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo two and half years of RI with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo further four months RI. However, original accused No. 1 came to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and original accused No. 2 also came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It deserves to be noted that appeal qua original accused No. 2 came to be dismissed at the time of admission of this appeal vide order dated 31/08/1996 passed by this Court and therefore this Court is required to consider whether the interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order so far as acquittal qua original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 306 of the IPC is concerned. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that marriage of deceased came to be solemnized about five years prior to the date of incident i.e. 16/08/1994 with original accused No. 1. The original accused No. 2 is brother of original accused No. 1. It is the case of prosecution that initially their marriage life of accused No. 1 and deceased was good, but thereafter the accused persons had started demanding dowry in the form of gold chain, as also shown their unwillingness to live with her and thereby causing mental and physical torture to her. It is also the case of prosecution that on account of the mental torture being meted out to her, the deceased had poured kerosene on herself, ignited match-stick and thereby committed suicide. Thus, the accused persons committed offence of abetment to commit suicide. It is also the case of prosecution that during the marriage life of accused No. 1 and deceased, on account of the demand of dowry, the deceased got burnt injuries and died an unnatural death and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the accused persons committed offence of abetment to commit suicide. It is also the case of prosecution that during the marriage life of accused No. 1 and deceased, on account of the demand of dowry, the deceased got burnt injuries and died an unnatural death and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the accused persons. 3.1 Thereafter, investigation was carried out and the accused came to be arrested. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate Court. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court and, ultimately, trial was initiated and charge came to be framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.2 In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons, prosecution has examined following witnesses: ORAL EVIDENCE Sr. No. Name of Witness Exhibit 1 Bhikhabhai Jagabhai Prajapati-Complaint 10 2 Paliben Bhikhabhai 17 3 Manjulaben Ramanbhai 18 4 Ramanbhai Narsinhbhai Prajapati 19 5 Natubha Chandubha parmar 20 6 Fatehsinh Punamsinh Solanki-PSI 22 7 Govindbhai Hirabhai-PI 23 8 Dr. Ganesh Pyarelal Goekar 26 Documents 1 Complaint 24 2 Inquest Panchnama 11 3 Panchnama of clothes of the deadbody 12 4 Yadi sent to FSL 12 5 Forwarding letter regarding muddamal sent to FSL 15 6 Receipt of FSL 16 7 Panchnama of place of incident 21 8 FSL report 28 9 Postmortem report 29 3.3 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.4 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge passed the impugned Judgment. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order, the appellant-State has preferred present appeal before this Court. 4. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP has taken us through the evidence and contended that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused inspite of voluminous evidence against them and contended that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused. 4. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP has taken us through the evidence and contended that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused inspite of voluminous evidence against them and contended that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused. She submitted that though the prosecution has examined 08 witnesses and also produced number of documents in support of its case, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated them and acquitted the accused of the major charges levelled against them. She submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons. She submitted that even the medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution. She submitted that in his evidence before the Court, the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution. She submitted that from the deposition of the medical officer and the postmortem note, it is clear that injuries shown in the certificate are sufficient to cause death of the deceased and therefore original accused persons ought to have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. She submitted that in view of minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the complainant, it cannot be brushed aside. She also submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective, therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing present appeal. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the original accused has submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not require to be interfered with since the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in true and letter spirit. He has also contended that ingredients qua the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied and the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused for the said offence and he therefore contended that present appeal may be dismissed. 6. We have heard Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the accused. We have gone through the evidence on record. 7. 6. We have heard Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate for the accused. We have gone through the evidence on record. 7. So far as the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) of the IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that accused have subjected the deceased to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand of dowry soon before the death of deceased. However, looking to the findings recorded by the trial Court in paragraph No. 37, it transpires that the learned advocate appearing for the original complainant before the trial Court has in all fairness candidly submitted that in this particular case, it cannot be said that prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was dowry demand, soon before the death of the lady from the evidence on record. It also deserves to be noted that death of the deceased was occurred one year and nine months after deceased made complaints to her parents and no such evidence has come on record in this regard to show that any such demand having been made during the nine month's period. Hence, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court so far as acquittal of the original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 304(B) of the IPC is concerned. 8. Now, so far as acquittal of original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as noted earlier, from the evidence on record the prosecution has failed to prove that there is any nexus between the cruelty meted out to deceased prior to her second visit and her act of committing suicide. The learned trial Court has rightly recorded that in the facts of this case, there is no evidence on record to show that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment during the so- called period of nine months or a year prior to that. Thus, this Court is also in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court so far as acquittal of original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. 9. Thus, this Court is also in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court so far as acquittal of original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. 9. It is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 , the Apex Court has narrated the powers of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below." 9.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415 , the Apex Court laid down the following principles; "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: [1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [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." 9.2 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even 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. 9.3 Even in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Another, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed 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." 9.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of MP reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 9.5 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors., (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in paras-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 ankle 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." 9.6 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 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. v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 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. Since counsel for the appellants 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 re-appreciate 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 ]" 9.7 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. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]" 9.7 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, 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." 9.8 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 10. We have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and we are in agreement with the view taken by the lower Court. Moreover, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence on record so as to take a contrary view in the matter or to conclude that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored material evidence while acquitting the accused. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in acquitting the original accused No. 1 so far as offence punishable under Sections 304(B) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below in the impugned judgment and, therefore, find no reasons to entertain this appeal. 11. In the result, present Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.1996 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 335 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. The accused No. 1 is reported to be on bail and hence his bail bond and surety shall stand cancelled. 11. In the result, present Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.1996 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 335 of 1995 is hereby confirmed. The accused No. 1 is reported to be on bail and hence his bail bond and surety shall stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the Jail authority concerned within a period 12 weeks from today for undergoing the prescribed period of sentence; failing which the concerned Investigating Agency shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. The accused may be given the benefit of set of for the period he has already undergone. Registry to return the R&P to the concerned trial Court forthwith.