JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.11.2002 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Session Case No. 12 of 1998. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections 143, 147, 302, 498(a) and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 The prosecution alleges that three months prior to the incident, the deceased, Jyotsnaba, married Accused No. 1, Indrasinh Ajitsinh Zala. The other accused, Balbhadrasinh Ajitsinh Zala (elder brother of the accused), Mahendrasinh Ajitsinh Zala (Younger brother of the accused), Kanakba Ajitsinh Zala (Mother-in-Law), and Gitaben Balbhadrasinh Zala (Sister in law of the accused) were also involved. During the marriage, the deceased-Jyotsnaba was subjected to mental and physical torture, demanding dowry by the accused. 2.2 On August 22, 1997, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and tortured Jyotsnaba. With the common intention to cause her death, they forced her to consume poison. Jyotsnaba was taken to C.U. Shah Medical Centre, Surendranagar, where she subsequently died during course of medical treatment. 2.3 The deceased’s brother, Rajendrasinh Gagubha Jadeja, lodged First Information Report (FIR) as CR (I) No. 149 of 1997 on 23.08.1997 at 1:30 PM with Surendranagar City Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302, 498A, 304B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.4 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas, collected medical documents, and obtained the post-mortem report. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar. Given the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar. Given the seriousness of the alleged offenses, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.5 Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Sessions Court, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy and taking into consideration the testimony of the Defence witness no. 1. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Himanshu K. Patel at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, framed charges vide Exh.11 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents-Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 15 prosecution witnesses and also produced 18 documentary evidence, which are as under: Oral Evidences PW No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness Nature of Witness 1. 21 Bhagwatiprasad Amrutlal Shukla Panch of Scene of Offence Punchnama 2. 25 Mayurdhwajsinh Jatubha Rana Panch of Scene of Offence Punchnama 3. 26 Jigneshkumar Kantilal Kotak Panch of punchnama of clothes of deceased 4. 28 Rajendrasinh Gagubha Jadeja Complainant 5. 33 Sureshbhai Ratilal Vaniya Panch of punchnama of clothes of deceased 6. 34 Surubha Kalubha Zala Brother in Law/Jijaji of deceased 7. 35 Gagubha Kalyanbhai Jadeja Father of Deceased 8. 36 Ravjibhai Dhanabhai Makwana Doctor who performed PM 9. 43 Dr. Dilipbhai Markandrai Pancholi Treating Doctor 10. 47 Premkuvarba Gagubha Jadeja Mother of the deceased 11. 48 Dhiruba Balubha Rana Police Witness 12. 49 Jashubha Lakhuba Rana Police Witness/PSO 13. 52 Rafikudin Amirudin Kadri Police Witness/Dy. SP 14. 53 Banji Dhanabhai Rabari Police Witness/PI/IO 15. 56 Pradipsinh Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja Police Witness/IO/PSI Documentary Evidences S. No. Exhibit No. Documentary Witness 1. 19 Inquest Punchnama 2. 20 Arrest Punchnama 3. 48 Dhiruba Balubha Rana Police Witness 12. 49 Jashubha Lakhuba Rana Police Witness/PSO 13. 52 Rafikudin Amirudin Kadri Police Witness/Dy. SP 14. 53 Banji Dhanabhai Rabari Police Witness/PI/IO 15. 56 Pradipsinh Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja Police Witness/IO/PSI Documentary Evidences S. No. Exhibit No. Documentary Witness 1. 19 Inquest Punchnama 2. 20 Arrest Punchnama 3. 22 Scene of offence Punchnama 4. 27 Punchnama of clothes of the deceased 5. 29 FIR 6. 37 Yadi sent by Police for performing PM of the deceased 7. 38 PM note 8. 38 Yadi sent by C.U. Shah medical hospital for performing PM 9. 40 Letter written by Dr. from M.G. Smarak Hospital to Dr. Dilip M. Pancholi, C.U. Shah Medical centre requesting to provide details of the deceased 10. 41 Details provided by Dr. Dilip M. Pancholi, C.U. Shah Medical centre to Doctor of M.G. Smarak Hospital 11. 44 Photo copy of the letter written by Doctor from M.G. Smarak Hospital to Dr. Dilip M. Pancholi, C.U. Shah Medical centre for providing necessary details about the deceased 12. 45 Details provided by Dr. Dilip M. Pancholi, C.U. Shah Medical centre to Doctor from M.G. Smarak Hospital 13. 46 Medical case papers of C.U. Shah Medical centre about the treatment provided to the deceased 14. 50 Station dairy entry of Surendranagar City Police Station about the registration of FIR being i-CR No. 149/1997 15. 51 Copy of the abstract of A. D. No. 33/1997 under section 174 of CRPC registered with Surendranagar City Police Station 16. SIC 17 54 Copy of the communication made to FSL Junagadh for examination of Mudamaal 18. 55 FSL Report 5. The defence has examined the Defence Witness no. 1 (DW) viz. Chandrikaben Vadilal and her deposition is exhibited at Ex.61. 6. We start with oral testimony of prosecution witnesses, who have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2 at Exhibit-21 and Exhibit-25 respectively viz. Bhagwatiprasad Amrutlal Shukla and Mayurdhwajsinh Jatubha Rana respectively, as well panch witnesses of the scene of offence punchnama PW-3 and 5 viz. Jigneshkumar Kantilal Kotak and Sureshbhai Ratilal Vaniya respectively at Exhibit-26 and 33, who are panch witnesses of punchnama of clothes of the deceased. 7. The Prosecution has also examined another witness as PW-4 viz. Rajendrasinh Gagubha Jadeja at Exhibit 28, who happened to be real brother of the deceased and he deposed that the deceased's marriage took place 21 and a half months before the incident. 7. The Prosecution has also examined another witness as PW-4 viz. Rajendrasinh Gagubha Jadeja at Exhibit 28, who happened to be real brother of the deceased and he deposed that the deceased's marriage took place 21 and a half months before the incident. A month after the wedding, her younger brother, Chatrasinh, visited her matrimonial home. Following this, the deceased stayed at her brother's residence for three or four days before being brought back by her mother-in-law. 7.1 The deceased later returned to her matrimonial home and informed PW-4 of experiencing minor harassment. PW-4 reassured her that things would improve, and the deceased declined to return to her matrimonial home. 7.2 Subsequently, the deceased's father, uncle, and brother-in-law visited her matrimonial home. At that time, the accused assured them that the deceased would no longer be harassed. The deceased then returned to her matrimonial home, accompanied by PW-4, who stayed there for one night. 7.3 PW-4 later stayed at the residence of his other brother-in-law, Surubha Kalubha Zala. Around 10:00 PM, accused No. 3, Mahendrasinh Ajitsinh Zala, arrived and informed PW-4 to come along with him. Upon reaching the scene, PW-4 found the deceased lying unresponsive. He immediately took her to a hospital by rickshaw. During the journey, the deceased stated that all the accused had conspired to force her to consume poison. 8. Prosecution has also examined PW-6 viz. Surubha Kalubha Zala, who happened to be the husband of the Sister of the deceased at Exhibit-34 and has not supported the case of the prosecution and declared as hostile. 9. Prosecution has examined PW-7 viz. Gagubha Kalyanbhai Jadeja at Exhibit-35 who happened to be the father of the deceased, who deposed that the deceased stayed at her place for 15 days and at that time informed him that she is being harassed by her mother in law, Kanuba and husband of Kanuba. Thereafter the deceased was taken back to her matrimonial home by Kanakba Ajitsinh Zala, accused no 4 and thereafter, deceased was beaten and accused quarrelled with her and hence, on next day, deceased came back to her parental home. After 15 days, PW-7 Umedsinh, Surubha and Hanubha visited the matrimonial home of the deceased and pursued the mother-in-law of the deceased and hence, the accused persons have asked him to drop the deceased at her matrimonial home and hence, his son viz. After 15 days, PW-7 Umedsinh, Surubha and Hanubha visited the matrimonial home of the deceased and pursued the mother-in-law of the deceased and hence, the accused persons have asked him to drop the deceased at her matrimonial home and hence, his son viz. Raju went there to drop her. 10. Prosecution has examined PW-8 viz. Dr. Ravjibhai Dhanabhai Makwana. who has performed PM and deposed that there were no external or internal injuries found on the person of the deceased and the cause of death was kept pending and called for the viscera report and as per viscera report final cause of death is “Cardio-Respiratory Failure, due to 2-Isopropoxy Phenul Methul Carbamet [Baygon Insecticide] poisoning”. 11. Prosecution has examined PW-9 viz. Dr. Dilipbhai Markandrai Pancholi at Exhibit 43 who has treated the deceased. He has deposed that when the patient was brought, she was in conscious condition and he has treated her for about 15-20 minutes and during the treatment the deceased died. 12. Prosecution has examined PW-10 viz. Premkuvarba Gagubha Jadeja at Exhibit-47. who happened to be the mother of the deceased and she has deposed that before 3 months of the incident the deceased got married with accused no. 1 viz. Indrasinh Ajitsinh Zala and after marriage the deceased stayed there for 1½ month and was brought to her parental home for some religious ceremony and then deceased stayed there for 15 days. And thereafter the deceased was taken back by her mother in law and on very next day the deceased came back to her parental home. She has deposed that accused persons beating her and driven her out during night hours and for dowry the deceased was being harassed by them. The Husband, brother in law and son in law of PW No. 10 went to matrimonial home of the deceased for settlement and the settlement was arrived with a condition that the accused persons will not harass the deceased and thereafter, after 2-3 days, the son of this P.W. went to drop the deceased at her matrimonial home and on third day, the deceased was killed by giving her poison. 13. Prosecution has examined PW-11 at Exhibit 48, who was serving as PSO at Surendranagar City Police Station and at 20:00 hours constable viz. 13. Prosecution has examined PW-11 at Exhibit 48, who was serving as PSO at Surendranagar City Police Station and at 20:00 hours constable viz. Harishchandrasinh came with the clothes of the deceased and thereafter the clothes were seized after drawing the punchnama at Exhibit-27 and Prosecution has examined PW-12 viz. Jashubha Lakhuba Rana at Exhibit 49 who has registered the FIR and made entry in the station dairy. Prosecution has examined PW-13 viz. Rafikudin Amirudin Kadri who is Dy S.P. Surendranagar and has taken over the investigation from Pl Rabari on 23.08.1997 as the marriage span is of less than 10 years. He has further deposed that he has visited the scene of offence. recorded statements of neighbours and gone through the papers of investigation carried out by PI Rabari and recorded the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304, B, 498 (a), 147 and 148 of Indian Penal Code and after registration of the FIR the investigation was entrusted to PI, B.D. Rabari. Prosecution has examined PW No. 14 viz. Banji Dhanabhai Rabari at Exbibit-53 who was serving as PI. Surendranagar Police Station and is Investigating Officer. He has deposed that he has drawn inquest punchnama, scene of offence punchnama and handed over the investigation to Dy S.P. Kadri. Thereafter on 23.08.1997 at 13 30 hours after registration of the FIR, the investigation was taken over by him and has recorded statements of witnesses, send the mudamaal to FSL, Junagadh and received the FSL report and arrested the accused persons. Thereafter, because of the transfer, the investigation was handed over to V.G. Jadeja, who has submitted the chargesheet. Prosecution has examined PW-15 viz. Pradipsinh Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja and has deposed that he is serving as PSI and has recorded the statements of witnesses. 14. The defendant has examined DW-1 viz. Chandrikaba Vadilal Thakkar, who is neighbour of accused and has deposed that the marriage life of the deceased was going smooth and she never heard about the torture or harassment to the deceased by her in-laws. On the day of incident, the deceased visited her home at about 6.00-7.00 pm and the deceased had asked for cold water and there after the deceased informed her that she is feeling like vomiting and severe headache. 15. On the day of incident, the deceased visited her home at about 6.00-7.00 pm and the deceased had asked for cold water and there after the deceased informed her that she is feeling like vomiting and severe headache. 15. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned judgment is erroneous based on irrelevant material in prosecution evidence, wrongly found contradiction in prosecution evidence and appreciation of evidence is not properly done by learned Sessions Judge, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. He would further submit that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereby accused could have been proven guilty and punished for the offense committed by them. He would submit that learned Sessions Court has misdirected itself and thereby, given wrongly the benefit of doubt to accused, which resulted into their acquittal. According to him, despite there being deposition of PW-4 viz. Rajendrasinh Gagubha Jadeja. (complainant Brother), who had lodged the FIR and to whom the oral dying declaration was made by the deceased, learned Trial Judge has discarded this evidence. 15.1 He would further submit that despite there being deposition of PW-7 viz. Gagubha Kalyanbhai Jadeja the father of the deceased and PW-10 viz. Premkuvarba Gagubha Jadeja-the mother of the deceased and have deposed in their depositions about the physical and mental torture meted out by the accused persons. However, the learned Trial Judge has not considered the same. 15.2 He would further submitted that despite there being evidence of PW-8 viz. Dr Ravjibhai Dhanabhai Makwana and evidence of PW-9 viz. Dr. Dilipbhai Markandrai Pancholi, who have deposed that because of the consumption of poisonous substance, the deceased had died. 15.3 He would further submit that despite there being the evidence of Investigating Officer-PW-14, who have deposed about the entire investigation, however, the same has been discarded by the learned Trial Judge. 15.4 He would lastly submit that considering the marriage span of hardly 3 month, the learned Sessions Court ought to have drawn the presumption against the accused. As per Section 113-B of Evidence Act and having failed to notice such fact and provisions of law, the learned sessions Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused. 15.4 He would lastly submit that considering the marriage span of hardly 3 month, the learned Sessions Court ought to have drawn the presumption against the accused. As per Section 113-B of Evidence Act and having failed to notice such fact and provisions of law, the learned sessions Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused. 15.5 Thus, according to learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned Sessions Court has committed a grave error by recording an order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and set aside and he has requested to allow the present appeal. 16. Learned advocate, Ms Nayana M Patel appearing for accused-Respondents herein, submitted that the order of learned Trial Court, is just and reasonable in the facts & circumstance of the case. There is no error committed by Session Court while acquitting accused from all charges. She would submits that prosecution is failed to prove any of charges levelled against accused. It is not proved that victim was subjected to any cruelty then presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act would not requires to be drawn by Session Court which was rightly not taken into consideration. Thus, she would submits that impugned judgment does not require any interference and hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. No other and further submissions being made by any of respective parties. 18. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding acquittal appeal, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal. 19. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal. 20. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: “29. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “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, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise 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.” 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. (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.” 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. as follows: “8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence. 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material. 41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 21. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 21. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after appreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered while deciding the present appeal. 22. Considering the facts and evidences advanced and the examination of the witnesses, it is pertinent to note the fact that complainant-Rajendrasinh Gagubha Jadeja has deposed certain facts, which are not stated in the FIR and the complainant has not deposed that the deceased was subjected to physical and mental torture during her stay at her matrimonial home and the evidence of complainant is not getting corroborated from the evidence of PW-6 viz. Surubha Kalubha Zala, who has also accompanied the deceased and complainant when the deceased was being taken to hospital. 23. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-7 viz. Gagubha Kalyanbhal Jadeja is not found trust worthy and is not getting corroboration from the evidence of PW-6 viz. Surubha Kalubha Zala in the same way, the evidence of mother i.e. PW-10 is suffering from serious contradictions and not getting corroboration from evidence of Surubha Kalubha Zala. 24. It is important to note that the deceased had no injury marks on her face or inside her mouth, despite allegations of poison being forcefully administered. Additionally, the panch witnesses present during the scene of the offense did not support the prosecution's case, including the seizure of the clothing. 25. It is further requires to be noted here that DW-1 who happens to be neighbor of accused categorically stated that prior to her death i.e. soon before death, she had visited her house but nothing has been stated by victim about administering poison by any of accused. Moreover, as per said evidence, victim was not subjected to any cruelty by accused. 26. The submissions made by learned APP as regards to presumption as to dowry death is concerned, no such arguments was ever made before the Sessions Court. Moreover, as per said evidence, victim was not subjected to any cruelty by accused. 26. The submissions made by learned APP as regards to presumption as to dowry death is concerned, no such arguments was ever made before the Sessions Court. Nonetheless, considering the provisions of Section 113-B of Evidence Act, which is couched in a manner whereby burden is upon the accused to discharge in a case of dowry death of a woman subjected to cruelty soon before her death. So, we have to examine such arguments in light of facts & circumstance of present case by reappreciating evidence on record. We do so being question of law raised during course of arguments and sufficient material is already on record which would helpful us to examine and decide it. 27. It is true that marriage span of deceased was hardly three month and allegations made against the accused were serious in nature, which includes demand of dowry but after re-appreciating the evidence on record and as discussed herein above evidence of each witnesses, we are unable to accept such arguments, especially, when prosecution is prima facie failed to prove any demand of dowry by accused while leading an appropriate and cogent evidence. According to us, the Accused have discharged their initial burden by examining the neighbour, namely, Chandrikaba Vadilal Thakkar-DW-1, who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing comes out from her cross-examination which may remotely support the case of the prosecution in relation to any cruelty inflicted upon the deceased by accused, which is sine qua non for presumption as to dowry death. So, session court though not referred to and discussed intrinsic of S. 113-B of Evidence Act, in light of above said facts & evidence, no error has been committed by it while acquitting accused. 28. Thus, after going through evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Sessions Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the charges against accused are just and proper and we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused. 29. 28. Thus, after going through evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Sessions Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the charges against accused are just and proper and we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused. 29. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with scope of acquittal appeal, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar, in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1998 while acquitting the respondents. 30. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.