JUDGMENT : 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2007 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.40 of 2007, 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 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the complainant namely Nita has been married with accused – Baldevbhai Melabhai Makwana in the year 2001 as per Hindu rituals and after marriage, the deceased – Nita was residing with her in-laws. In the beginning marriage life of the deceased was happy, but thereafter, she was beaten and subjected to cruelty by the respondents on the ground of household work and out of the said wedlock, the deceased has given birth to two children namely Mahesh and Kalu. That prior to eight months from the date of incident, deceased came to her parental home and informed the complainant that her husband and in-laws are giving ill-treatment and demanding Rs.3,000/-. At the relevant time, the complainant was not having Rs.3,000/-, but he managed for Rs.2,000/- and sent her back to her maternal home. On 16.02.2006, the complainant received telephone that deceased was beaten by the respondents-accused and they have caused fracture and thereafter, she was taken back to the complainant's house and given treatment by doctor. Thereafter, on 17.02.2006, though the deceased was beaten by the respondent-accused, none of the respondents has taken care about her health and due to ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased by the respondents, she committed suicide on 26.09.2006 by pouring kerosene over her person and set on fire. On these facts, a complaint was filed by the complainant with Kheda Town 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. Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person 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. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3. Thereafter, after filing closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of accused person 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 07.09.2007 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.40 of 2007, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 6. Though rule is served, none appears for the respondents. 7. Learned APP pointed out that though parents, mediator, brother and sister of the deceased have fully supported the case of prosecution and the husband used to pick up quarrel for household work and as and when the victim becomes pregnant, the in-laws demanded money from her and sent her back to the parental home and they all used to subject her to cruelty and harass her and even on the day of incident, all accused had beaten her due to which she poured kerosene over her person and set on fire and ultimately succumbed to the injury which is clearly emerging out from their evidence is clearly overlooked by the learned trial court and therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be converted into conviction. 8. 8. As per the prosecution case, deceased Nita got married with accused Baldev for about seven years prior to the incident and out of the said wedlock, there were two children and she was also carrying pregnancy at the relevant point of time and the accused used to demand money (dowry) as well as used to beat her for household work and were harassing her due to which on 26.09.2006, she poured kerosene over her person as well as her son aged about two years namely Kalu and set on fire due to which she as well as her son succumbed to the injury and thereby the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 114 of the IPC as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 9. PW.1-Dr. Rajesh Purani-Medical Officer, General Hospital at Kheda carried out autopsy over the dead body of the victim- Nita as well as her son Kalu and opined that cause of death is cardiac respiratory arrest fallen shock due to burns. 10. PW.5-Bhikhabhai Vaghaji Thakore - the complainant-father of the victim Nita deposed that his daughter got married with accused Baldev for about 8 to 9 years prior to the incident and she was happily residing with her husband and in-laws and she had never complained as regards ill-treatment to her. She had two children. He cannot say the reason as to why she got burnt along with infant child. 11. PW.6-Shardaben Shakraji-mother of the victim deposed that her daughter Nita got married with accused Baldev and she used to return to her parental home with resentment, but as regards to injury over the person of victim, she deposed that she had no idea as to why she got burnt. In the cross-examination, she admitted that her daughter was very sentimental and she used to return to her parental home frequently with resentment. 12. PW.7-Samuben – who was mediator for performing marriage between the victim Nita and the accused Baldev deposed that she was residing in-front of victim and Nita and her husband were residing happily, there was no problem and she had no idea as to why the victim got burnt, but she deposed that the victim was assaulted by her husband for not carrying out the household work properly. She also admitted that the victim was very sentimental and she got resented frequently. She also admitted that the victim was very sentimental and she got resented frequently. 13. PW.8-Kokilaben-sister of the victim though involved the accused in her examination in chief but in the cross-examination, she admitted that she had not stated before the police in her statement that on the day of incident, victim-Nita was beaten by her husband and in-laws due to which she got burnt. 14. PW.9-Bhaveshbhai Bhikhabhai-brother of the victim deposed that his sister got married for about 7 to 8 years prior to the date of incident with accused Baldev and there were two children out of their wedlock and they were residing happily. Before the incident she was beaten by her husband for about six months prior to the incident in question and thereafter, she visited her parental home and he cannot say as to why she as well as her infant child got burnt. In the cross-examination, he admitted that before the police he had not stated that deceased Nita was treated by her husband and in-laws with cruelty. 15. On overall evaluation of aforesaid evidence on record and in light of submissions advanced by learned APP Ms. Hansa Punani, records and proceedings clearly indicates that no direct piece of evidence is available on record so as to link the accused with the crime in question. The entire case of prosecution is based upon the evidence of complainant, parents, brother and sister of deceased-Nita and relying upon aforementioned evidence, learned trial court has convicted the accused-Baldev – husband for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC as some of the witnesses deposed that the victim was beaten on her hand and one hand was broken down due to which the accused-Baldev was found guilty to that extent and that incident alleged to have been occurred for about six months prior to the alleged incident of commission of suicide as such. 16. Record is not indicating as to whether the accused- Baldev has challenged his conviction under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 17. So far as offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, the State seeks to convert the judgment of acquittal into conviction. 16. Record is not indicating as to whether the accused- Baldev has challenged his conviction under Section 498(A) of the IPC. 17. So far as offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, the State seeks to convert the judgment of acquittal into conviction. On overall appreciation of aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that neither parents, nor brother, sister of the deceased or mediator Samuben have supported the case of prosecution or even involved the accused as regards to burn injuries found over the person of deceased Nita and her son on 26.09.2006. Therefore, no iota of evidence is available on record so as to link the accused with the crime in question as regards to commission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC. None of the witnesses had deposed that either due to ill-treatment or harassment, the deceased was induced to commit suicide and as a result thereof, she took the extreme step of committing suicide along with her infant child. For want of such evidence on record, learned trial court has rightly not believed the case of prosecution and has rightly acquitted the accused which calls for no interference. Therefore, present appeal being devoid of any merits deserves to be rejected. 18. 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. 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. 19. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 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. 19. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 07.09.2007 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Nadiad in Sessions Case No.40 of 2007, 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.