JUDGMENT : 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.304 of 2000, whereby the present respondents-original accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage of deceased Jyotikaben had taken place for about 10 years prior to the date of incident and that all the accused persons were giving mental and physical harassment to the deceased and as it was beyond her control, she committed suicide on 09.09.1999 by pouring kerosene on her body and set on fire and ultimately, she died while taking treatment. On these facts, a complaint was filed by the complainant with Maninagar Police Station. The police after investigation charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. After filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused persons have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 4. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the respondents-accused. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.09.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.304 of 2000, the appellant- State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Punam Gadhvi submits that he was a witness before the learned trial court and through oversight his appearance has been shown here and he also makes it clear that he had neither appeared, nor conducted the present appeal before this Court, therefore, he seeks deletion of his name from the appearance in present appeal to which learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent no.1. 7. Permission as prayed above by learned advocates is granted. Learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent no.1. 7. Permission as prayed above by learned advocates is granted. Learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal is permitted to file his appearance on behalf of respondent no.1. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Punam Gadhvi has also pointed out that respondent – Induprasad Vasudev Shelat died on 28.11.2011 and therefore, present appeal stands finally abated against him. 9. Learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani has taken this Court through entire records and proceedings and read over the evidence of material witnesses as well as two doctors who carried out the autopsy as well as who treated the deceased and argued that learned trial court has unnecessarily given more importance to minor contradictions in the evidence of complainant-brother of the victim though the say of the complainant was fully getting support from the documentary evidence which was a contemporary record which came to be recorded by deceased’s father and further evidence on record clearly indicates that the deceased was constantly harassed by the respondents-accused and they also constantly used to demand dowry as well as gold and money for residential flat due to which ultimately, she got fed up and committed suicide and though the proximate cause as well as sufficient evidence was available on record, learned trial court had wrongfully given the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. K.J. Panchal has argued that this is a clear case wherein no iota of evidence is available on record to link the respondents-accused with the crime in question. He submitted that though there are four dying declarations which are in the nature of direct evidence as available on record, wherein the deceased has clearly mentioned that as the gas cylinder was empty due to which while igniting the kerosene stove, she accidentally got burnt and upon inquiry on specific questions by learned Executive Magistrate, she clearly and categorically answered that there was no any harassment, no ill-treatment from her in-laws and the aforesaid four dying declarations are clearly absolving the respondents-accused. In that view of the matter, while PW.1- complainant – Vikrambhai Vasudev Joshi lodged a complaint on 09.09.1999 and thereafter, he gave two successive further statements before the police on 10.09.1999 and 23.09.1999. Initially, while he lodged the complaint, he had not stated anything except showing suspicion over the respondentsaccused. In that view of the matter, while PW.1- complainant – Vikrambhai Vasudev Joshi lodged a complaint on 09.09.1999 and thereafter, he gave two successive further statements before the police on 10.09.1999 and 23.09.1999. Initially, while he lodged the complaint, he had not stated anything except showing suspicion over the respondentsaccused. Gradually and slowly in the successive statements, he added as regards to harassment and ill-treatment and lastly even added as regards to demand of dowry in cash of Rs.50,000/- and wrongfully involved the present respondents-accused though the evidence may be appreciated upon the evidence available on record, then also it becomes unreliable from his own record itself, as it runs self-contradictory as per his own say. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Panchal further submitted that since the direct evidence is absolving all the respondents accused of any crime in question, similarly, the oral evidence of complainant is also not getting full corroboration from other material on record and on that count learned trial court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt which does not call for any interference. He further argued that learned trial court while appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses elaborately dealt with and elaborately recorded the reasons and thereafter, based a finding which is consistent with the evidence available on record and on that count also, there appears no possibility of taking any contrary view than the view taken by learned trial court. 12. As per the prosecution version, deceased – Jyotikaben was the wedded wife of respondent-accused no.3 – Shashishekhar Induprasad Shelat, whereas accused no.1 is the brother-in-law and accused no.4 and 5 are sister-in-law of the deceased. The deceased and accused no.3 got married for about ten years prior to the date of incident and after marriage they were residing with her in-laws and the accused used to harass her and subject her to cruelty and was also demanding cash of Rs.50,000/- and 5 tolas of gold as well as residential flat in the nature of dowry due to which on 09.09.1999, the deceased poured kerosene over her person and set herself on fire due to which she succumbed to the injuries and thereby the respondents committed offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC as well as under Sections 4 and5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 13. 13. PW.1-Vikram Vasudev Joshi – brother of the deceased deposed that he was serving as Principal in I.T.I., Bilimora at the relevant time. The deceased Jyotika was his sister. She got married with accused no.3-Shashishekhar in the year 1989 and she was residing along with him as well as his younger brother and two sisters and parents. He further deposed that while he was visiting her house, his sister-deceased used to tell him to bring Rs.50,000/- cash as well as 5 tolas of gold as her house was under construction and there was a demand from her inlaws, but he was not in a position to fulfill such demand due to which the accused were harassing her and subjected her to cruelty and she was also suffering from Parkinson disease and ultimately she got fed up and committed suicide by pouring kerosene over her person and thereafter, she was taken to L.G. Hospital, Maninagar where she could not survive and thereafter, he lodged the complaint. His deposition runs into 24 pages and his improvements as well as contradictions are brought on record. It has also been brought on record that initially while he lodged the complaint, no allegations as regards to demand of dowry as well as cruelty were made in it, but subsequently, in his further statements he added other allegations. 14. PW.2-Dr. Vikram Parghi deposed that on 10.09.1999, he carried out autopsy over the dead body of deceased Jyotika and she had second and third degree of burn injuries over her person. He further deposed that the injuries found over her person was suicidal in nature. However, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot specifically opine as to whether the death of deceased was accidental or suicidal. 15. PW.7-Dr. Bharatbhai Chhaganbhai Sorathiya – who was Medical Officer serving with L.G. Hospital Burns Wards as a Plastic Surgeon deposed that on 09.09.1999, deceased- Jyotikaben was brought before him at about 1:55 p.m. and at that time she was fully conscious and upon asking she stated that while she was cooking over the stove, she accidentally got burnt and there were around 95% burn injuries over her person and she succumbed to the injury on the following day. In the cross-examination, he further admitted that on 09.09.1999, regarding her physical and mental condition, he made positive endorsement. 16. In the cross-examination, he further admitted that on 09.09.1999, regarding her physical and mental condition, he made positive endorsement. 16. PW.9 – Dalelsing Fatehsinh Solanki – deposed that he was serving as Assistant Police Sub-Inspector with Ellisbridge Police Station on 09.09.1999 and at about 12 noon while he was on duty at L.G. Hospital, he received vardhi from P.S.O. So, he visited the hospital and interrogated the injured and he recorded the statement as stated by her and thereafter, also prepared ‘Yadi’ for recording dying declaration through the Executive Magistrate. 17. Over and above aforesaid oral evidence, prosecution has also produced four dying declarations of deceased – Jyotika which are at Exh.118 – in the history before the Doctor, Exh.140, 142 and 146. 18. The aforesaid all the four dying declarations came to be recorded on 09.09.1999 by different officers who were on duty. Dr. Bharat Sorathiya who was the treating doctor of the deceased Jyotika deposed that during the course of her examination, upon inquiry she herself stated that while she was cooking over stove, she got accidental burns due to which she got burn injuries over her person which has been proved in the oral deposition of Dr. Sorathiya as well as certificate issued by him also came to be produced at Exh.118. Another dying declaration at Exh.140 came to be recorded by on duty P.S.O. Mr. Dalelsingh at L.G. Hospital, wherein he deposed that while he was on duty at that time upon receipt of vardhi, he interrogated the deceased and upon inquiry, she stated before him that she was a resident of Nutan Shakti Society, Maninagar and was residing with her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and younger sisters-in-law. Her husband was serving at Laxmi Cooperative Bank, Narol and she was suffering from Parkinson disease and for that she was taking treatment of Dr. Pooransinh Thakur. She further stated that on 09.09.1999, her husband and brother-in-law left for the job at around 9:00 a.m. and as the gas cylinder was empty and since her parents-inlaw were aged and also she was suffering from Parkinson disease, gas cylinder could not be changed. As per the report, she lit/ignited Primus of Brass for cooking and frill of gown put on by the deceased got flames of Primus all of a sudden. As per the report, she lit/ignited Primus of Brass for cooking and frill of gown put on by the deceased got flames of Primus all of a sudden. The third dying declaration recorded by Head Constable of Maninagar Police Station on 09.09.1999 which came to be produced at Exh.142 wherein the deceased, inter alia, stated that she was residing with her in-laws and her husband was serving with Laxmi Co-operative Bank and out of their wedlock, they have two children, she being suffering from Parkinson’s disease and taking medicines and having a gas connection in the name of her father-in-law, as cylinder got empty and her husband and brother-in-law were not at home, she was unable to change it. Thereafter, she ignited Brass Primus, she had put on polyester gown, frill of her gown accidentally got flames by which she got burn injuries. The fourth dying declaration came to be recorded by Executive Magistrate which is in the nature of question-answer form which is reproduced herein: Sr. No. Question Answer 1 What is your name? My name is Jyotikaben. 2 What is your husband's name? My husband's name is Shashibhai 3 What is your age? 40 years 4 Where do you reside? I am residing at 1, Nutan Shakti Society, Vibhag-I, Maninagar, Ahmedabad. 5 What is your caste? I am Brahmin by caste. 6 What do you do? I am doing household work. 7 What is your qualification? I have studied up to B.Com. 8 How may members are residing at your home? I am residing with my husband, kids, parents-inlaw, younger brother-inlaw and sister-in-law. 9 When did your marriage took place? My marriage took place before ten years. 10 At where, when and at what time, the incident took place? The incident took place at 10:45 a.m. on 09.09.1999 at my house at Nutan Shakti Society. 11 Details of the incident Today, on 09.09.1999, when I tried to lit the primus for cooking of Dal, accidentally, my clothes caught fire and therefore, I shouted for help and my father-in-law rushed to the place. 12 Where were the family members at the time of incident? At the time of incident, I and my parents-in-law were at home. The others left for job and the kids were ready to go to school. 13 What have you wear at the time of incident? I wore gown and petticoat. 12 Where were the family members at the time of incident? At the time of incident, I and my parents-in-law were at home. The others left for job and the kids were ready to go to school. 13 What have you wear at the time of incident? I wore gown and petticoat. The gown was pitch (badami) coloured. 14 Have you tried to commit suicide? No, I have not tried to commit suicide. 15 Who got you burn injury? No, no one got me burn injury. 16 Who gave you mental and physical harassment? No, no one gave me mental and physical harassment. 17 Do you want to tell something? No, I don't want to tell anything. All other procedural formalities such as taking endorsement of doctor that the deceased was conscious and in her full senses as well fit mental state of affairs to make the dying declaration was completed. 19. In view of aforesaid nature of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, two set of evidence is available on record. The first set of evidence is direct evidence from the mouth of deceased – Jyotika herself wherein four independent persons have recorded dying declarations from the mouth of the deceased on 09.09.1999, wherein before all the four persons, she narrated that while she was cooking over stove, she got burn accidentally and even upon asking by Executive Magistrate as to whether she was having any harassment from her husband or her in-laws wherein she had specifically denied. While recording the aforesaid dying declarations, the narration made by deceased Jyotika before the treating doctor, the doctor himself had testified before the learned trial court that she was fully conscious and she was in fit state of mind to give the dying declaration. Similarly, while her dying declaration was recorded by Executive Magistrate, the treating doctor has also certified that at the time of recording dying declaration his certificate as regards to her mental and physical condition was obtained and even after completion of recording evidence also, he endorsed that she was mentally and physically fit to give such dying declaration and that was also emerging out from Exh-146 itself. Precisely, all the four dying declarations recorded by independent persons after obtaining her physical and mental fitness as regards to give such dying declarations clearly indicate the innocence on the part of the respondents-accused. 20. Precisely, all the four dying declarations recorded by independent persons after obtaining her physical and mental fitness as regards to give such dying declarations clearly indicate the innocence on the part of the respondents-accused. 20. Though, after the completion of post death ceremony, the real brother of deceased Jyotika gave a precise F.I.R., wherein he merely raised suspicion against the respondents-accused and thereafter, gradually and slowly in the further statements dated 10.09.1999 and 23.09.1999, he added one after another reasons of harassment and as to how she was treated with cruelty and even as regards to demand of dowry in the nature of cash of Rs.50,000/- as well as 5 tolas of gold etc. The prosecution also tried to prove by bringing on record that the father of the deceased was maintaining usual diary as regards to happenings in the family and two entries were there in the year 1994 wherein the father of the deceased Jyotika noted that she was severely beaten by her husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law. 21. To thwart such theory of prosecution, learned advocate Mr. Panchal pointed out that the incident in question happened in the year 1999. Indisputably, there was a long marriage span of about ten years and there were two children out of the said wedlock and the writing came to be produced was about five years back from the date of incident and even such things were not stated by the complainant while lodging the complaint on 09.09.1999 as well as on 10.09.1999. He further pointed out that surprisingly though the father of the deceased used to take down the note of the incidents which were happening in the family, but no such document was produced disclosing that the in-laws demanded cash of Rs.50,000/- for about 8 to 9 years prior to the date of incident as well as 5 tolas of gold and a residential flat. The oral evidence of complainant is rightly not believed by learned trial court. The oral evidence of complainant is rightly not believed by learned trial court. If at all there was a constant demand of dowry and it continued for about nine years and if she used to apprise this fact to the complainant continuously, then that fact surely could not have been missed by the complainant from pointing out on the first point of time when he lodged the complaint or at least on the second chance when his second further statement came to be recorded on 10.09.1999. But all these sort of allegations involving the present accused with the crime in question are emerging out from the second further statement is prima-facie appears to be concocted and got up one, otherwise if the deceased alleged to have been apprised him and he was knowing from the beginning and that was the root cause of commission of suicide as alleged, it could not have been missed in the first two statements as recorded by learned trial court. 22. Since the case on hand is having two sets of evidence from the prosecution, the first set of evidence which is direct evidence in the nature of four dying declarations recorded by four different persons who were on duty while examining the deceased Jyotikaben clearly absolve the respondents-accused with the crime in question whereas another set of evidence led by prosecution which is oral testimony upon the hearsay evidence alleged to have been made by them upon the strength of whatever alleged to have been apprised by the deceased to them is not at all getting any sort of corroboration from her direct dying declarations. In the dying declaration recorded by one police officer which runs into two pages, whereas the dying declaration recorded by Executive Magistrate where she was specifically asked as to whether she was having any sort of harassment from her in-laws or as to whether she was treated with cruelty, she clearly and categorically replied that there was no such harassment or cruelty to her. In that view of the matter, since the direct evidence is available on record and the oral evidence of her brother and other relatives is not at all getting any sort of corroboration from the mouth of deceased-Jyotika and even the said evidence appreciated in the aforesaid factual scenario, then also, it is not coming out in the natural way in which it should be as the real brother who was aware of ill-treatment for abut a decade though whenever on the first point of time, he did not alleged anything against the respondents-accused. Even in the further statement, he had not stated anything. All of a sudden after about two weeks in the second further statement, he made allegations as regards to harassment and involves present respondents-accused with the demand of dowry becomes totally doubtful which is not believable as appreciated above. 23. This Court has also gone through the judgment and order of learned trial court. The learned trial court while answering the point of determination, recorded ample reasons and rightly discarded the evidence of complainant which was not getting any sort of corroboration from other evidence on record and which had become unreliable due to exaggeration, inconsistency, contradictions as well as embellishments he made thereon and which was not even consistent logically as he did not state so before the police while he got two earliest opportunities to say so. In that view of the matter, there appears no possibility of taking any other view than the view taken by learned trial court and learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused which calls for no interference and therefore, present appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be rejected. 24. It is settled legal position that in an acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned decision as it cannot be said to be either perverse or not borne out from the facts of the case. The State has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view in this matter. Hence, this appeal sans merit is required to be dismissed. 25. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 12.09.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.304 of 2000, acquitting the respondents-accused, is hereby confirmed. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.