JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred present Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.07.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2005, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has been pleased to acquit all the respondents-accused. 2. It is the case of prosecution that complainant Dixit Rasikchandra Zinabhai Lad is residing at Dharampur, Asura, Jhampa, Machiwad, Valsad. On 25.02.2001 his elder sister Mamtaben married with Hemantbhai Arvindbhai and residing at Haler, Kumbharwad, Dist.: Valsad. After her marriage she was living with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband in joint family. After 15 days of her marriage, on phone, Mamtaben complained about her father-in-law and mother-in-law regarding daily tortured and physical harassment by demanding dowry. After two years of marriage, Mamtaben and her husband lived in rented quarter at Abrama Manibaug area about up to 1 to 1/2 years. At that time also, physical and mental torture by her father-in-law and mother-in-law continued and accordingly held a meeting at Tadkeshwar Mandir of Prajapati Samaj before respectable persons and they took the responsibility that Mamtaben's father-in-law and mother-in-law will not torture her physically and mentally on dowry and thereafter she lived with them. It is the case of prosecution that on 31.3.2005, according to complainant, he along with his father and mother were present at residence at about 7 hrs morning, at that time, phone of complainant's brother in law came and he informed that Mamtaben was admitted in Doctor House Hospital. On receipt of phone call, complainant along with his father, mother and other family members reached at hospital at about 12 hrs. At that time, Mamtaben was unconscious and was treated in emergency ward. At that time, accused Hemant apprised them that about 5 hours in the morning, Mamta and Hemant got up and after routine work, Mamtaben prepared Tiffin and when he started to proceed, Mamtaben took one spoon of Ashwa Gandha powder with milk and she started vomiting and became unconscious and accordingly, she was admitted in hospital. 3. Accordingly on 3.4.2005, the complainant lodged a complaint at 15 hours at City Police Station, Valsad, where a case was registered at CR. No. 84 of 2005 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. 3. Accordingly on 3.4.2005, the complainant lodged a complaint at 15 hours at City Police Station, Valsad, where a case was registered at CR. No. 84 of 2005 under Sections 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. During pendency of investigation, Mamtaben expired on 5.4.2005 for which police has added Section 304(b) of Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against all accused persons and thereafter, charge was framed against them for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 304B, 114 of IPC read with Section 3 and 7 of the Prevention of Dowry Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 63 of 2005. 4. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Session Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad acquitted all the accused persons for the charges framed against them vide judgment and order dated 21.07.2006. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 6. Learned APP has taken us first to the complaint filed by the complainant as well as read over the evidence of material witnesses i.e. brother of deceased, father and neighbour as well as two important witnesses i.e. Doctor and investigating officer and has pointed out that prosecution has proved that the death of deceased was found to be homicidal and as per say of doctor it was due to some poisonous substance as she took up some poisonous substance but the learned Judge did not believe the version of prosecution and held that there was improvement in the version of material witnesses as well as report of chemical analysis and wrongfully granted the benefit of doubt to respondents and submitted that appeal is required to be allowed by reversing the judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge. 7. As against said, Shri Lakhani, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri Vijal Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondents submitted that during pendency of this Appeal, the respondent No. 1 expired and accordingly, appeal qua respondent No. 1 be abated. 7. As against said, Shri Lakhani, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri Vijal Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondents submitted that during pendency of this Appeal, the respondent No. 1 expired and accordingly, appeal qua respondent No. 1 be abated. He has also submitted that he has received the certificate but copy of death certificate is not with him but he undertakes that the copy of death certificate of respondent No. 1 will be produced on record on tomorrow i.e. 5.12.2017. 8. In view of aforesaid, now the appeal is confined only for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to link with the offence with prosecution case as father and brother of deceased, themselves during the course of AD investigation pointed out that there was no dowry demand and there was no harassment to deceased from respondents and subsequently after recording the complaint, lot of improvements are made in their version and contradictory versions have came out. The improvement made during the course of their evidence has brought on record, even their cross-examination as well as in examination before Police Officer. Consequently, the evidence of complainant as well as father of deceased lead no further case of prosecution and even otherwise also, their evidence is hear say in nature, as alleged to have made such statement upon the story stated by complainant as deceased was not found in conscious mind in hospital and no dying declaration nor any statements of deceased was taken on record. 9. Shri Lakhani, learned counsel has pointed out that report of chemical analysis produced at page-333 and 339 clearly indicate absence of any poisonous substance in viscera as well as different samples were taken at the place of incident as well as from the body of deceased. Consequently, the opinion given by doctor is not getting any support from the report of chemical analysis and even otherwise also according to his submission, the cause of death occurred due to poisonous substance, can only be based upon the expert opinion. The serological report and chemical report are not supporting the case of prosecution. Consequently, the opinion given by doctor is not getting any support from the report of chemical analysis and even otherwise also according to his submission, the cause of death occurred due to poisonous substance, can only be based upon the expert opinion. The serological report and chemical report are not supporting the case of prosecution. He has further argued that learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and material placed on record and gave cogent reasons for arriving at finding, which does not require any interference from this Court. He further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the respondents accused. Hence, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the accused and no such interference of this Court is required in the present appeal filed by the State and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. We have heard Mr. Ronak Raval, learned APP and Shri Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Desai, learned advocate appearing for respondents. 11. We have minutely gone through the entire record and proceedings and also perused the evidence of material witnesses as well as impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court. On our reading, it transpires that the material witnesses have improved their version and learned Judge has rightly appreciated the same. 12. As per the prosecution version, deceased was harassed and ill-treated by respondents on account of not bringing sufficient dowry and due to which, she was administered poisonous substance by accused and due to which she died during the course of treatment. In order to bring home the guilt on the part of the present respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined about 5 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 13. So far as PW-1 Dixit Rasikchandra is concerned, he has narrated the details of incident, which he has narrated in the complaint. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when he visited the hospital on 31.3.2005, till 12-00 O'clock, there was no police. He has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased was admitted in the hospital by her husband for treatment and there was no demand of dowry by husband from the complainant. In the cross-examination, he has stated that when he visited the hospital on 31.3.2005, till 12-00 O'clock, there was no police. He has admitted in his cross-examination that deceased was admitted in the hospital by her husband for treatment and there was no demand of dowry by husband from the complainant. He has also admitted in cross-examination that deceased and her husband were residing peacefully separately at village: Abrama and there was cordial relationship between the husband and wife and there was no ill-treatment by her husband to deceased. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that it was not correct that with a view to see that deceased left the house of respondent - husband, husband has administered poisonous substance. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not met the doctor as doctor has not responded properly to his father and mother. Learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and recorded finding that PW-1 has made lot of improvement during his deposition, more particularly in para-3, 4, 5 and 6 and accordingly, learned Judge has rightly discarded the same as there was vast contradictions in the complaint given by the complainant and in his deposition. 14. Same is the position in respect of PW-2 -Rasikchandra Zinabhai Lad - father of deceased Mamtaben, who also had admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding ill-treatment meted out to deceased. He has admitted in cross-examination that he has not stated fact that after marriage, ornaments of her daughter were with her husband. He has also admitted in cross that respondent husband was taking care of her wife - deceased and there was no difference of opinion between husband and wife. He has admitted in cross that when his daughter came to parental house, she complained about the ill-treatment meted out to her and also regarding dowry. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he gave statement on 31.3.2005, wherein, he has deposed that there was no torture from her in-laws and deceased was not died due to poisonous substance but the cause of death was that deceased has taken some powder and thereafter, her health was deteriorated and she died. Learned Judge has appreciated the evidence of PW-2 and came to the conclusion that there was lot of improvement in his version. 15. Learned Judge has appreciated the evidence of PW-2 and came to the conclusion that there was lot of improvement in his version. 15. So far as evidence of PW-3 Naranbhai Dahyabhai Lad is concerned, he was examined at Exh. 31, who happened to be distinct relative as well as neighbour of deceased. In the cross-examination, this witness has clearly admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the incident but the brother of deceased has informed him to state what he told to police and thereafter, he has deposed. He has also admitted in cross that he knew that on 5th day poisonous substance was administered to Mamta but in which month, he did not know. He has also admitted in cross that deceased died due to deceased took ashwagandha powder with milk. This witness has also improved his version. 16. PW-4 Dr. Sandipbhai Sumanbhai Desai, who treated the deceased Mamtaben has deposed in his deposition how he has carried out treatment and in his opinion, he has clearly stated that unless the report of Chemical analysis came, he could not opine regarding cause of death. 17. PW-5 Dr. Milapsinh Jaysinh Rathod, Medical Officer has deposed at Exh. 38 that at about 1-30 PM on 7.4.2004, the dead body of deceased Mamta was handed over to him for PM. He has opined that the cause of death is given after report available from Chemical analyzer from FSL. He has admitted in his cross-examination that as per his opinion, it was not possible that deceased died due to administering poisonous substance. He has admitted in cross that he has given his opinion on 15.6.2005 after receipt and perusal of FSL report. He has also admitted in cross that as per chemical report, there was no presence of poison. 18. As the respondent No. 1 expired during the pendency of Appeal and death certificate is produced on record, the appeal against respondent No. 1 abates. 19. On overall analysis of evidence and on going through the material on record as well as on going through the evidences of two doctors as well as report of chemical analysis at page-333 and 339, the cause of death is not clear and no clear and clinching evidence have brought on record so as to believe that death was homicidal in nature. As per deposition of complainant as well as his father, she took powder of 'Ashwagandha' and therefore, she was vomiting and became unconscious and accordingly she was taken to hospital and there was no story as described by prosecution. There was no poison administered upon the deceased by accused and there was no sample available of poison around her. Even the complainant and his father has improved their version. 20. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, the case of the prosecution and as the prosecution miserably failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents accused of the charges leveled against them. 21. We are mindful of the limitations, which are prescribed by catena of decisions in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and some of the decisions delivered by the Apex Court are if considered in relation to the reasons, which are assigned by the learned Judge, we are unable to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. We may refer to some of the well defined proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court in respect of exercise of appellate jurisdiction and we deem it proper to incorporate the same in the present judgment which substantiates the conclusion which has been arrived at by us and therefore, same are reproduced hereinafter : 21.1 In a decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 353 , it was observed that if two views are possible, the High Court should hold in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an order of acquittal. The relevant observations of the decision are reflected in Para.55, 56 and 57 which read as under : 55. The second contention is that the High Court ought not to have interfered in the acquittal by the Trial Court. It was submitted that if two views are possible, the High Court should lean in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an acquittal. 56. A few years ago, the law on the subject was culled out from a large number of decisions and summed up in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1318 : 2008 AIR SCW 6598) as follows: "1. 56. A few years ago, the law on the subject was culled out from a large number of decisions and summed up in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1318 : 2008 AIR SCW 6598) as follows: "1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: i. The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; ii. The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii. The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; iv. The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; v. The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi. The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii. This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." 57. The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. vii. This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." 57. Learned counsel for Suresh Kumar referred to S. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 219 : (2013 AIR SCW 6180) particularly paragraph 14 of the Report wherein reliance was placed on Rohtash v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 : ( AIR 2012 SC 2297 : 2012 AIR SCW 3318) to conclude that it is "only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, can the High Court interfere with the order of acquittal." In Rohtash it was further observed: "The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 : ( AIR 2011 SC 2271 : 2011 AIR SCW 3889) Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 : ( AIR 2012 SC 1292 : 2012 AIR SCW 1994). 21.2 In yet another decision in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka, 2014(9) SCC 365 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed as observed in paragraph Nos. 30 and 31. 21.3 In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2015(5) Scale 634 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when there are two views culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision reads thus: 10. Taking the First question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognized as a human right by this Court. Taking the First question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognized as a human right by this Court. In Narendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 : ( AIR 2004 SC 3249 ), this Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right and has gone on to say that: "30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between 'may be' and 'must be'. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger when a judgment of acquittal is passed. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a Higher Court (see Dhanna v. State of M.P., Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) which had not been adhered to by the High Court. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 33. We, thus, having regard to the postmortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimla Bai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld. 21.4 The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph Nos. 21 observed thus: 21. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. 21 observed thus: 21. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate court on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. In State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary (2005) 8 SCC 364 , this Court reiterated the well settled principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court and that only where the material on record leads to an inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 . 22. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and in view of our comprehensive analysis with the entire evidence on record, we consider that the reasons, which are assigned by the learned Judge and the conclusion, which has been arrived at is a plausible view and there seems to be no other contrary view possible to dislodge the findings and therefore, keeping in view the peripheral limit of appellate jurisdiction, while dealing with the order of acquittal, we are of the view that there is no legal infirmity or perversity, which can be said to have caused any miscarriage of justice and therefore, this Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial Court are absolutely just and proper and while 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. In this background of the situation, we are of the view that appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the present appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The appeal filed against respondent No. 1 stands abated as expired. In this background of the situation, we are of the view that appeal filed by the State deserves to be dismissed. 23. In the result, the present appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The appeal filed against respondent No. 1 stands abated as expired. The judgment and order, dated 21.07.2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Valsad is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.