JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15-5-2008 rendered by learned Presiding Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Anand in Sessions Case No. 111 of 2007. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that deceased Madhuben Laljibhai Padhiyar was married to the respondent-accused for about eight years prior to the incident and both were residing together. It is alleged that on the day of incident, i.e. 8-7-2007 as the deceased prepared "khichdi" only and had not prepared vegetables, due to which the respondent-accused got annoyed and also spoke concerning the character of the deceased and other things, due to which, the deceased got excited and poured kerosene over her person and got burnt. It is alleged that the respondent-accused was very much present; he tried to save the deceased by pouring water. It is alleged that the deceased received burn injuries and soon after the incident, she was taken to the hospital at Borsad, and thereafter, she was taken to the well-known hospital at Karamsad where she remained as indoor patient and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent-accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondent-accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 5. At the and of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. 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. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. 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. 8. Ms. Punani, learned A.P.P., appearing for the appellant-State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned A.P.P. has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that 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. She further submitted that entire case of the prosecution rests on the dying declarations made by the deceased before the Police as well as before the Executive Magistrate which ought to have been relied upon by the learned trial Court. She further submitted that learned trial Court has wrongly given more weightage to other multiple dying declarations which came on record revealing contradictory statements of the deceased, resultantly given the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused which is required to be reversed, as such. 9. Though served, none appears for the respondent-accused. 10. This Court has heard Ms. Punani, learned A.P.P., for the appellant-State. 11. 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, as stated above, deceased Madhuben Laljibhai Padhiyar was married to the respondent-accused for about eight years prior to the incident and both were residing together. It is alleged that on the day of incident, i.e. 8-7-2007 as the deceased prepared "khichdi" only and had not prepared vegetables, due to which the respondent-accused got annoyed and also spoke concerning the character of the deceased and other things, due to which, the deceased got excited and poured kerosene over her person and got burnt. It is alleged that on the day of incident, i.e. 8-7-2007 as the deceased prepared "khichdi" only and had not prepared vegetables, due to which the respondent-accused got annoyed and also spoke concerning the character of the deceased and other things, due to which, the deceased got excited and poured kerosene over her person and got burnt. It is alleged that the respondent-accused was very much present; he tried to save the deceased by pouring water. It is alleged that the deceased received burn injuries and soon after the incident, she was taken to the hospital at Borsad, and thereafter, she was taken to the well-known hospital at Karamsad where she remained as indoor patient, and ultimately succumbed to the injuries, and thereby, the respondent has committed the offences punishable under Secs. 498A, 306 and 504 of I.P.C. and Sec. 31(2) of the Domestic Violence Act. 12. It can be seen from the record of the case that soon after the incident, the history as regards to the incident relating to the deceased was recorded by P.W. 6-Dr. Mukeshbhai Patel at about 9-26 a.m., on 9-7-2007 wherein she gave history of burn that around at 11.00 p.m., on 8-7-2007, she had quarrel with her husband at Asodar village, and hence, she set herself ablaze. Thereafter, the deceased was again inquired as regards to burn injuries while she was shifted to the surgery department. At that time, the deceased was under the treatment of P.W. 7-Dr. Anand Patel. On being asked to the injured victim, she stated that there was quarrel between her and her husband, due to which, she poured kerosene and set her ablaze. Thereafter, on the same day i.e. 9-7-2007, the Executive Magistrate recorded the dying declaration at about 13-30 hours where the injured, inter alia, stated that on the day of incident at about 11.00 p.m., during nocturnal hours, there was quarrel with her husband, due to which, she poured kerosene over her person; she stated that on that day, she prepared "khichdi" only while her husband returned home at late night and that he did not eat khichdi and threw away it and started speaking abusive language concerning her character and also told her that she is having paramour, due to which, she got excited and set her ablaze. The F.I.R. came to be recorded on 9-7-2007 wherein regarding the incident, the deceased merely stated that her husband came late at night from the work and asked as to why she did not return from her parental house on the previous day and also doubted her character and abused, due to which, she poured kerosene and set her on fire. 13. P.W. 3-Manabhai Somabhai Parmar has been examined at Exh. 25. The witness is the father of the deceased who also inquired probably on 10-7-2007 as regards to the injuries sustained by the deceased. At that time, the deceased has stated that on the day of incident, she prepared merely "khichdi" and did not prepare vegetable, due to which, her husband spoke two words and threw away dish, due to which, she felt bad and poured kerosene over her person and burnt herself. The witness further stated that except the above, though he extensively inquired, but the deceased did not disclose any reason. 14. Other dying declarations have also been recorded before the family members, but the same had not supported the case of the prosecution, however, the same also run in parallel line to that of earlier dying declarations that due to non-preparation of vegetable, there was quarrel for which she got angered and committed suicide. 15. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clearly emerging out that except the dying declarations, none of the witness had given any evidence involving the present respondent-accused with the crime in question. Under the circumstances, the only decisive evidence is dying declarations of the deceased which alleged to have been recorded by the Police Official, treating Doctor as well as the Executive Magistrate and that oral dying declaration before the near relatives. 16. The summary of the dying declarations is already recorded above and on making evaluation of it, the learned trial Court recorded that there appears infirmity and that all the dying declarations are not consistent with one another. It can also be seen that the Executive Magistrate had clearly admitted in his deposition that while recording the dying declaration, he had not obtained any certificate of fitness from the treating Doctor and as to whether, the deceased was in fit state of mind or not. The Executive Magistrate straightaway recorded the dying declaration and obtained signature on it. 17. The Executive Magistrate straightaway recorded the dying declaration and obtained signature on it. 17. This Court has minutely gone through the evidence of P.W. 3-Father of the deceased wherein he had clearly and categorically admitted that except the aforesaid solitary incident of 8-7-2007, there was no any occurrence or any sort of dispute or untoward incident and the deceased was regularly visiting his house and never complained as regards any sort of ill-treatment from her husband. The dying declarations made before the Executive Magistrate as well as before the Police is in conformity with each other and the dying declarations before the two Doctors as well as her father are quite different, though, it were recorded within short span of time before the Doctors as well as her father wherein she had not stated except the incident of non-preparation of vegetable. 18. In view of the aforesaid material discrepancies amongst multiple dying declarations and that dying declarations recorded by the Police as well as Executive Magistrate have been recorded without obtaining any fitness certificate from the treating Doctor as regards her mental and physical condition, it would not be prudent to act upon the said dying declarations as there are dying declarations on record contrary to the same wherein the said incident has been described differently. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent-accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 19. 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. 20. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. 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. 21. 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.