JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. This Appeal, under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the State of Gujarat against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.4.1987 passed by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1986 for offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, 323, 504 read with section 54 of Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant Kesharba was residing with her husband Manuji Bhathiji who was serving with the Police Department and three sons namely, Kirit, Bharat and Narendra in room No.339 of Block No.29 situated in Madhupura Police Line. Accused were residing in Room 342 of Block No.30 situated opposite to Room No.339 referred above at the same Police Line. It is the case of the prosecution that before a period of about two months of the occurrence of the incident in question, arrangement to exhibit film on video in the Police Line was made as there was "Jagarana" by deceased Bharat and his brother Kirit i.e. sons of the complainant. When the function of exhibiting film on the video was going on, accused No.1 started throwing stones on women and girls who had come to watch the film. On seeing this, Manuiji Bharathji, father of the deceased scolded him. After heated arguments, accused No.1 said that he would take revenge and commit murder of Bharat. Since both the families had strained relations. On 24.1.1986 between 8.30 to 9.00 a.m. the complainant Kesharba, her husband and sons were inside the house When Bharat came out of the house, accused No.1 enquired as to why Bharat was spitting after seeing him and started giving abuses. On hearing this, the complainant came out of the house. Accused No.2 and 3 also came out of their house. All the three accused started absuing deceased Bharat and his mother. Kesharba persuaded her sons not to pick up quarrel with the accused. At that time one person named Vijay intervened and took all the accused persons to their house. Suddenly accused No.1 came out of his house through the rear door with a knife and gave a blow to deceased Bharat on the right side of the chest. Kesharba persuaded her sons not to pick up quarrel with the accused. At that time one person named Vijay intervened and took all the accused persons to their house. Suddenly accused No.1 came out of his house through the rear door with a knife and gave a blow to deceased Bharat on the right side of the chest. While trying for a second blow, Bharat raised his hand and so he sustained injury on the wrist and fell down on the ground. When the family members of the deceased tried to intervene in order to save Bharat, accused No.3 caught hold of the private part of Manuji Bhathuji and accused No. 2 gave a blow with stick to Kesharba on head. Accused No.1 gave knife blow to Manuji Bhathuji on chest, abdomen and on wrist. He also gave knife blow again to Kesharba on abdomen and when one Ghanshyam Varvaji tried to intervene, accused No.1 gave a blow with knife to him. Brother of deceased, Kirit came and gave a blow with stick to accused No.1 in order to deprive him of the knife he had in his hand. That blow was on the head of accused No.1. Thereafter accused No. 1 injured himself by knife blow on his shoulder, leg and other parts of the body and threw away the knife and went inside the house. Thereafter all the injured including deceased Bharat were brought to Civil Hospital for treatment. The in-charge of Shahibag Police Station Head Constable Chhotalal was informed by police constable Kishorsinh that there was a quarrel in Madhupura Police LIne. The police team proceeded to the place of incident and after making note in the Vardhi Book, message was conveyed to police control room. While treatment, Bharat has succumbed to his injuries. Complaint was lodged by Kesharba, mother of the deceased and the PSI had sent his report to Madhupura police station for registration of the offence. He wrote yadi to Executive Magistrate, for recording dying declaration of Manuji Bhathuji After some time, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital informed PSI, Vaghela that Bharat Manuji had expired. Thereafter, inquest panchnama was made. After carrying out necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. Muddamal articles were also recovered. He wrote yadi to Executive Magistrate, for recording dying declaration of Manuji Bhathuji After some time, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital informed PSI, Vaghela that Bharat Manuji had expired. Thereafter, inquest panchnama was made. After carrying out necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. Muddamal articles were also recovered. During the course of investigation, the respondents were arrested, ultimately charge sheet came to be filed and thereafter as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad to the Sessions Court under section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. After investigation, charge was framed at Exh.1 against all the accused. The accused denied the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove the case, after framing of charge, the following prosecution witnesses were examined : 1 PW 1 Rathendra B Deshmukh, Medical Officer Exh. 17 2 PW 2 Tulsidas Parmar, M.O. Exh. 25 3 PW 3 Piyusha Gandharia, M.O. Exh. 29 4 PW 4 Madhusudan Pandya, M.O. Exh. 30 5 PW 5 Ghanshyamsinh Varvaji Exh. 36 6 PW 6 Chhayaben D Patil, witness Exh. 37 7 PW7 Manuji Bhathuiji Exh. 38 8 PW8 Kesharba Manuji Exh. 39 9 PW9 Chhotubhai Mangalbha, H.C. Exh. 40 10 PW 10 Maganbhai Parmar, Ex.Magistrate Exh. 41 11 PW 11 Prajapati Shivaji, PSI Exh. 42 12 PW 12 Sajubha Jilubha Gohil, P.I. Exh. 51 4.1. Besides the aforesaid oral evidence, documentary evidence such as Inquest Panchnama Exh. 8, FIR Exh.50, post mortem Note Exh. 18, Report of FSL Exh.16, Panchnama of place of offence Exh.22, the list of Muddamal articles etc. 5. After examining the prosecution witnesses and on submission of closing pursis by the prosecution, the learned Addl.City Sessions Judge has recorded statements of all the accused persons under section 313 of the Code in which it is stated by the accused that false case is filed against them. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the case against the accused had not been proved as no satisfactory evidence was adduced to show that the accused were guilty of the offences with which they were charged. The trial court, therefore, acquitted the present respondents-accused as referred above and hence this appeal. 6. The trial court, therefore, acquitted the present respondents-accused as referred above and hence this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr L R Pujari, learned APP for the appellant-State. He has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has committed error in acquitting the accused. He has further submitted that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the evidence on record is not sufficient to connect the respondents accused with the alleged crime against them. The learned Judge also erred in discarding the evidence of the complainant Kesharba Manuji Bhathuji whose evidence gets corroboration from FIR which was lodged immediately after the incident. The omissions and inconsistencies in the evidence of other eye witnesses are minor and their evidence should have been considered, as their presence is supported by circumstantial evidence and on the ground of being from one family, their evidence should not have been discarded by the learned Judge. Finally he has submitted that the impugned judgment being perverse and improper, the present appeal be allowed. 7. Learned Advocate for the respondents have submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence which is forthcoming on the record and the reasons recorded by it for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. He has further submitted that this being an Appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial court deserves to be upheld as proper and plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. He has lastly submitted that the Appeal be dismissed. 8. We have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned APP and the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2. 8.1. Perusal of the judgment dated 30.4.1987 passed in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1986 along with other evidence forthcoming on record, it appears that four eye witnesses have been examined by the prosecution namely, Ghanshyamsinh Varvaji Exh.36 who has been declared hostile and his evidence was discarded. The second eye witness Chhayaben Dattajirao Patil has been examined at Exh.37, page No.184 in which she has tried to support the case of the prosecution. It is the fact that the name of this witness is not mentioned in the complaint lodged by the complainant-Kesharba before PSI, P.S. Vaghela of Sahibaug police station. The second eye witness Chhayaben Dattajirao Patil has been examined at Exh.37, page No.184 in which she has tried to support the case of the prosecution. It is the fact that the name of this witness is not mentioned in the complaint lodged by the complainant-Kesharba before PSI, P.S. Vaghela of Sahibaug police station. Moreover, the explanation given by this witness Chhayaben about the injuries of the person of the accused No.1 appears not believable in view of the evidence of the Medical Officer who had examined accused No.1. According to the witness Chhayaben, accused No.1 (himself) gave knife blow on the left shoulder and on the left leg. Now, according to the Medical Officer Mr Rathendra Deshmukh, injuries No.1, 4, 8 and 9 found on the accused No.1 cannot be self-inflicted. Thus, the learned Judge rightly came to the conclusion that Chhayaben has not given the explanation/details of the injury on the person of accused No.1 in her cross-examination. It is not safe to place reliance on her evidence for the purpose of convicting the accused more particularly when the accused are charged with serious offence of murder. 8.2. Another witness Manuji Bhathuji has been examined at Exh.38 and Kesharba, the complainant has been examined at Exh.39. It appears that both the said witnesses have tried to support the case of the prosecution but they have made improvement to such an extent that it creates so many doubts in the deposition given by them. Moreover, the aforesaid witnesses have remained silent and denied that first of all the incident had taken place inside the house of accused No.1 and that creates serious doubt about the veracity of this witnesses. So, as per the case of the prosecution, the entire incident narrated in the complaint had occurred in between the houses of the parties as mentioned in the scene of incident but no incident is alleged to have occurred in the house of the accused No.1. On the contrary it is the case of the defence that the incident had taken place in the house of accused No.1- Ashok between Bharat and accused No.1 and the deceased received injuries in the same incident. Further it is the case of the defence that thereafter accused No.1 has tried to leave his house situated between room No.342 of Block No.30 situated opposite to room No.339 of Block No.29, to save himself. Further it is the case of the defence that thereafter accused No.1 has tried to leave his house situated between room No.342 of Block No.30 situated opposite to room No.339 of Block No.29, to save himself. At that time, Manuji Bhathuji, Kirit and Kesharba all have caught him. Accused No.1 took the knife and wielded at them and due to that the three were injured. If we refer the panchnama, at Exh.22 of scene of incident as well as the house of accused No.1 i.e. Room No.342 of Block No.30, the defence put up by the accused appears more probable and it goes against the case of the prosecution. It is not in dispute that as per the case of the prosecution in Room No.342 Block No.30, the accused were residing. Referring the panchnama Exh. 22, it reveals that while carrying out the said panchnama, the police and panchas have also entered in to the above referred room No.342 Block No.30 where the accused were residing. In the entire house, at three different places, blood stain in 2 ft. radius and 3 ft radius and 1 ft radius was found. Also the blood was found splashed to which foot marks etc were there. It is also important to note that as per the case of the prosecution one person named Vijay had persuaded the accused No.1 and had taken him inside the house and closed the door of the house from outside and thereafter the accused No.1 came outside through the rear gate of his house. In this case, the prosecution has not examined this witness Vijay who was the material witness in this case as observed by the learned Trial Judge, for the reasons best known to it. P.I. Mr Gohil in his deposition at Exh.51 has admitted that the dying declaration of Kesharba and Manuji Bhathuji was recorded by the Executive Magistrate on the day of the incident but in this case, there is nothing on record to show that copy of the dying declaration of Kesharba was recorded by the Executive Magistrate was supplied to the accused. It is very important to note that as per the case of the prosecution regarding the incident, the accused No.2 had also lodged complaint and it is forthcoming on record and has admitted by this witness as no charge sheet was submitted to the court in respect of the complaint lodged by accused No.2. By this action, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the police has made the investigation in this case with partiality as no investigation is made by the police in respect of the cross complaint filed by the accused No.2 and neither PSI Vaghela nor P.I. Sajubha Gohil has stated in their evidence as to what happened to the cross complaint filed by accused No.2. Therefore, we find ourselves in agreement with the observations and findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge. 8.3. The details relating to FSL report of deceased Bharat reads as under : Particulars Mark/Sr.No. Blood Group Lungi (details at page 82) Mark-P, Sr.No.26 (details at P. 100) A (details at P. 108 Baniyan (details at P. 82), Mark-Q,S.No.27 (details at P. 100) A " " Underwear (details at P. 82) Mark-R, S.No. 28 (details at P. 101) A " " Blood sample (details at P. 82) Mark-S,S.No.29 (details at P. 101) O " " 9. From the above, it is clear that deceased Bharat had 'O' blood group. As per the evidence on the record, the blood group of accused No.1 is "A". From the above chart, we can see that blood group "A" was found from the clothes of the deceased Bharat Manuji. If, as per the case of the prosecution, the injuries on the accused No.1 were self-inflicted then naturally one will not find "A" blood group on the clothes of the deceased Bharat Manuji. Hence we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court is completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges levelled against them. We find that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same. 10. We find that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same. 10. It is well settled that in acquittal appeal where there is a possibility of two views, the one favourable to the accused should be adopted. It is also well settled principles of law that the Appellate Court would be slow to interfere in an order of acquittal until and unless the judgment of the trial court is perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. In the present Appeal, we find that the reasons given by the trial court are plausible, cogent and convincing. Thus, in light of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any error in acquitting the accused. 10.1. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, 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 v. 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.” 10.2. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 11. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 11. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. We find 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. We are, 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 required to be dismissed. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.1987 passed by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1986 are confirmed. Bail Bonds stand cancelled. 13. The office shall send back the Records & Proceedings to the trial court forthwith, after following the due procedure. Appeal dismissed.