JUDGMENT : SAMIR J. DAVE, J. 1. The present appeal, under Section 378 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 07.09.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2001 whereby the accused were acquitted of the charges leveled against them. 2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under: 1. That deceased Anjuben- sister of Gunvantbhai Girdhanbhai Faladu, resident of Rajkot married with accused Pareshbhai Jagabhai Kapadiya on 08.02.2000 as per the rites and rituals of Hindu Society. After her marriage, she has started residing at her in-laws house in joint family consisting of father-in-law and mother-in-law and her husband. It is alleged that during her marriage life, the accused persons have given mental and physical torture to Anjuben by saying that she brought very less dowry and did not bring the Sofa set during her marriage. Thus, on account of such mental and physical torture being administered by the accused persons every now and then and also subjected her to cruetly, Anjuben could not bear the same and she committed suicide on 25.05.2000. Therefore, a complaint was lodged against the accused before Bhavnagar A. Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 to 10 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint was registered as C.R. No. I-277 of 2000. 2. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. Ultimately, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. 3. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court the same was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bhavnagar under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was numbered as Sessions Case No.39 of 2001. The trial was initiated against the respondents-accused. 4. To prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: Witness No. Name of the witness Exh. No. 1. Complainant- Gunvantbhai Girdharbhai Faddu 2. Babubhai Bachubhai 3. Rameshbhai Bachubhai Hirpara 4. Dr. Vijaychandra Ramdevputram 5. Bhavnaben Maheshbhai 6. Devendrakumar Akshaykumar Dave 7. Rasilaben Babubhai Rathod 8. Investigating Officer- Anirudhdhsinh Jilubhai Gohil 5. In order to support the case the prosecution has produced the following documents: Sr. No. 1. Complainant- Gunvantbhai Girdharbhai Faddu 2. Babubhai Bachubhai 3. Rameshbhai Bachubhai Hirpara 4. Dr. Vijaychandra Ramdevputram 5. Bhavnaben Maheshbhai 6. Devendrakumar Akshaykumar Dave 7. Rasilaben Babubhai Rathod 8. Investigating Officer- Anirudhdhsinh Jilubhai Gohil 5. In order to support the case the prosecution has produced the following documents: Sr. No. Documents Exh. No 1 Complaint 40 2 Yadi for Postmortem note of deceased 44 3 Form regarding noting of death 45 4 Postmortem report 46 5 Inquest panchnama 49 6 Panchnama of the scene of offence 50 7 Arrest panchnama of the accused 51 8 Arrest memo 52 9 Report for inclusion of charge under section 304-B of the IPC 53 10 Copy of station diary 54 11 Yadi for registration of complaint 56 12 Copy of station diary 57 13 Order of investigation 58 14 Yadi to perform postmortem 59 15 Yadi for inquest panchnama and to fill up form regarding noting of death. 60 16 Report under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 61 17 Yadi of PSI, A. Division FSL Bhavnagar. 62 18 Yadi to Prince Studio, Bhavnagar by PSI 63 19 Report of FSL, Bhavnagar 65 20 Letter of FSL, Junagadh 66 21 Letter addressed to FSL, Junagadh by PSI 67 22 Letter of FSL, Junagadh 68 23 Visera Report of FSL Junagadh. 69 6. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons of all the charges leveled against them by judgement and order dated 07.09.2009. 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 3. Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned APP submitted that the judgement and order of the Additional Sessions Judge is against the provisions of law; the Additional Sessions Judge has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. He submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record of the case in its true and proper prospective and hence, committed grave error in acquitting the accused persons. He submitted that P.W.1- Complainant Gunvantbhai Girdharbhai Faldu was examined at Exh.39 has supported the case of the prosecution. Further, P.W.7- Devendrakumar Dave, who was examined at Exh.48 and P.W.2- Babubhai Bachubhai, who was examined at Exh.41 have also supported the case of the prosecution as narrated in the complaint. It is also submitted that medical evidence gets corroboration with the depositions of the complainant and other witnesses. Learned APP submitted that there was no reason for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the prosecution case and to acquit the respondents. 4. At the outset 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 Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the 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 judgement 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.” 5. Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 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, reappreciate 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. [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.” 6. 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. 7. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the 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. 7. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the 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 judgement 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. 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.” 8. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give fresh reasoning, 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 Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: “.... Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: “.... & This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial 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. 10. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the Trial court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 11. This Court has gone through the judgement and order passed by the trial court. This Court has also perused record and proceedings and oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant. 12. It is true that a conjoint reading of section 113B of the Evidence Act and section 304-B of IPC shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. It is also evident that prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of the death occurring otherwise in normal circumstances. Therefore, the expression ‘soon before’ is very relevant where section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 204-B of IPC are pressed into service. The learned Judge has rightly held that deceased died within 7 years from the date of her marriage, however, the prosecution failed to prove the second condition of ‘soon before death’. It is also apparent that marriage of deceased Anjuben was made with accused at Bhavnagar, however, she also wanted to marry at Rajkot. The prosecution has also not proved beyond reasonable doubt that in a very short span of marriage life of 3.5 months she had committed suicide on account of mental and physical torture given by the accused persons for dowry, which was never informed to her parents by Anjuben in past. The prosecution has also not proved beyond reasonable doubt that in a very short span of marriage life of 3.5 months she had committed suicide on account of mental and physical torture given by the accused persons for dowry, which was never informed to her parents by Anjuben in past. It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case of death of dowry and therefore, the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the accused persons from the charged leveled against them. 13. In this fact situation the learned Sessions Judge has found that there are serious lacunae in the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondent. There are contradictory statements in the complaint and the witnesses. Therefore, the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. 14. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Mr.Devnani, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. 15. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. 16. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. 17. Record and Proceedings to be sent to the trial Court.