JUDGMENT : G.B. Shah, J. Present Criminal Appeals under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1988 arising out of Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987 (main appeal) and Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1988, arising out of Sessions Case No. 142 of 1987, have been filed by the State of Gujarat being aggrieved by the decisions dated 3rd March 1988, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter 'learned Sessions Judge' for brevity), in above referred Sessions Cases, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit all the accused of both the Sessions Cases of all charges. 2. Brief facts of the case related to Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1988 are that the, the accused have prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 325 and 323 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On 28th January 1987, in the sim of Village: Nandasan, Taluka: Kadi, the Complainant: Mahemudbhai Gulamali along with his uncle - deceased Roshanali Chhotumiya and his wife Bibalbibi had gone to the fields in the morning. After working there for the day, they were returning to the village in the afternoon and at about 4:30, they stopped on the way side bore of one Kapadiya to water their buffalo. At that time, accused No. 1 - Abbasbhai came there with his buffaloes also to water them. As the water was not sufficient to meet with the requirement of all the buffaloes, deceased - Roshanali asked Abbasbhai to water his buffaloes at some other place. It is the case of the prosecution that Abbasbhai abused deceased - Roshanali and went away, taking his buffaloes with him. After some time, deceased and the complainant along with Bibalbibi were going to the village along the 'Neliya' going from Nandasan to Mathasur. On the way near the field of one Lalbhai, accused No. 1 - Abbasbhai along with three others, met them and the accused assaulted deceased - Roshanali with stick. Roshanali fell down. The Complainant - Gulamali intervened and he was also given stick blows. Bibalbibi also given stick blows and injured. One Suleman, who was related to Roshanali, came there and the accused went away. The injured went to Kadi Hospital for treatment and there they lodged a Complaint with Police, late in the evening. The injured were admitted in Kadi Hospital for treatment. Bibalbibi also given stick blows and injured. One Suleman, who was related to Roshanali, came there and the accused went away. The injured went to Kadi Hospital for treatment and there they lodged a Complaint with Police, late in the evening. The injured were admitted in Kadi Hospital for treatment. Subsequently, as the condition of deceased deteriorated, he was shifted to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital, where he passed away on 29th January 1987. 2.1 So far as Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1988 (arising out of Sessions Case No. 142 of 1987), the accused have been tried for the offences punishable under Sections 325 and 323 of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The offences, which are ordinarily triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, have been tried by the Court of Sessions, because this case is the cross case to the Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987 (in which Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1988 is filed), which involves the offences, which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that, the incident took place on 28th January 1987 at about 5:30 in the evening at Village: Nandasan, Taluka: Kadi. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant and his brother along with their mother had gone in the fields during the day. They were returning in the evening with their buffaloes. Abbasali - the brother of the complainant had gone ahead with the buffaloes and had made some attempt to water the buffaloes on the well of Kapadiya on the way. Some quarrel took place and Abbasali walked away with his buffaloes. The complainant - Mustakali Ahmadbhai was following him in the 'Neliya' going in the village. At that time, accused No. 1 - Mahemoodmiya and his uncle - Roshanali pursued complainant. They were armed with sticks. Near the field of one Lalbhai, they accosted complainant and gave him blows causing him injuries. Hearing the shouts, Abbas came to his rescue. The accused No. 1 and Roshanali saw him coming there in the field, they once again assulted Abbasali causing him injuries. The complainant went to his rescue and some other persons also came there. The mother of the complainant tried to intervene but accused Nos. 2 and 3 started beating her. Then, the accused went away. The accused No. 1 and Roshanali saw him coming there in the field, they once again assulted Abbasali causing him injuries. The complainant went to his rescue and some other persons also came there. The mother of the complainant tried to intervene but accused Nos. 2 and 3 started beating her. Then, the accused went away. The complainant, his brother - Abbasali and their mother - Halimabai were injured. They went to Nandasan Police Out Post and lodged a complaint. They were treated by the Medical Officer at Nandasan. As the Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987 was committed to the Court of Sessions, this case, being Cross Criminal Case, has also been committed to the Court of Sessions. 2.2 On the complaint of Mahemoodmiya, the police investigated the offence and arrested the accused shown in Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1988 (Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987). On completion of investigation, the police charge-sheeted the accused for the above offences. As the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the accused were committed to the concerned Sessions Court. The accused pleaded 'not guilty' to the offences. The prosecution has examined following witnesses in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987 (Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1988): Sr. P.W. No. Name Exh. 1. PW-1 Dr. CS Parmar 23 2. PW-2 Dr. GC Patel 27 3. PW-3 Mahemoodmiya Gulamali 30 4. PW-4 Dr. SM Lad 32 5. PW-5 Bibalbibi 34 6. PW-6 Suleman Sadanuddin 35 7. PW-7 Head Constable - Laxman Ranaji 40 8. PW-9 Jamadar - Kavaji Khatuji 44 9. PW-10 PSI - UR Agat 53 10. PW-11 PSI - HR Rajgor 54 2.3 The list of documents, produced by the prosecution, which have been exhibited are as under: Sr. Document Exh. 1. Panchnama of Scene of Offence dated 29/01/1987 12 2. Panchnama of accused person of Abbasbhai dated 30/01/1987 13 3. Panchnama of clothes of deceased - Roshanali dated 30/01/1987 14 4. Panchnama of witness -Bibalbibi dated 30/01/1987 15 5. Inquest Panchnama of deceased - Roshanali 16 6. Copy of letter of PSI, Kadi, addressed to the Executive Magistrate, Kadi dated 24/02/1987 17 7. Copy of Despatch Note of PSI, Kadi to FSL, Ahmedabad dated 28/01/1987 18 8. Letter of FSL, Ahmedabad to PSI, Kadi dated 01/09/1987 19 9 . Report of FSL, Ahmedabad to PSI, Kadi dated 22/07/1987 20 10. Copy of letter of PSI, Kadi, addressed to the Executive Magistrate, Kadi dated 24/02/1987 17 7. Copy of Despatch Note of PSI, Kadi to FSL, Ahmedabad dated 28/01/1987 18 8. Letter of FSL, Ahmedabad to PSI, Kadi dated 01/09/1987 19 9 . Report of FSL, Ahmedabad to PSI, Kadi dated 22/07/1987 20 10. Serological Report of FSL, Ahmedabad dated 29/08/1987 21 11. MLC of Mahemoodmiya Gulamali dated 28/01/1987 24 12. MLC of Roshanali Chhotumiya dated 28/01/1987 25 13. MLC of Bibalbibi Roshanali dated 28/01/1987 26 14. MLC of Mahemoodmiya Gulamali dated 31/01/1987 29 15. MLC of Halimaben dated 28/01/1987 49 16. MLC of Abbasbhai dated 28/01/1987 50 17. MLC of Mustakbhai 51 18. Map of Scene of Offence 56 2.4 So far as the accused are concerned, they have pleaded a case of self defence. It is their case that, on the bore of Kapadiya, there was an exchange of words between Roshanali and Abbas. Abbas went away from that place with his buffaloes and he was followed by accused No. 2 - Mustakbhai - his brother. Mahemoodmiya and Roshanali pursued Mustakbhai in 'Neliya' and near the field of Lalbhai attacked Mustakbhai and caused him injuries on the head. Hearing the shouts, accused Abbasbhai, who had gone a little ahead, returned and came to the rescue of Mustakbhai. Mahemoodmiya and Roshanali, seeing him approaching, went towards him with stick and in the field of Lalbhai, gave him blows. At that time, Mustak also went to the field of Lalbhai from 'Neliya' and both the brothers, in self defence, gave some stick blows to Mahemoodmiya and Roshanali. Their mother - Halimabai was also with them. Thereafter, they went to the village and accused No. 2 - Mustak lodged a complaint with the Head Constable at Nandasan Out Post. 2.5 The prosecution has examined following witnesses in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1987 (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1988) Sr. PW No. Name Exh. 1. PW-1 Mustak Ahmadmiya 14 2. PW-2 Abbas @ Asbab Ahmadbhai 16 3. PW-3 Halimabibi Ahmadmiya 17 4. PW-4 Dr. Rajendra M. Thakkar 21 5. PW-5 Dr. C.G. Johnwal 23 6. PW-6 Jamadar - Kavaji Khatiji 27 7. PW-7 Head Constable - Pratapsinh Magansinh 28 8. PW-9 PSI - UR Agrat 30 9. PW No. Name Exh. 1. PW-1 Mustak Ahmadmiya 14 2. PW-2 Abbas @ Asbab Ahmadbhai 16 3. PW-3 Halimabibi Ahmadmiya 17 4. PW-4 Dr. Rajendra M. Thakkar 21 5. PW-5 Dr. C.G. Johnwal 23 6. PW-6 Jamadar - Kavaji Khatiji 27 7. PW-7 Head Constable - Pratapsinh Magansinh 28 8. PW-9 PSI - UR Agrat 30 9. PW-10 PSI - HU Rajgor 31 2.6 The list of documents, produced by the prosecution in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1987 (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1988), which have been exhibited are as under: Sr. Document Exh. 1. Panchnama of Scene of Offence dated 29/01/1987 8 2. Discovery Panchnama of weapon produced by accused 9 3. Copy of Notification of District Magistrate dated 15/01/1987 10 4. Copy of letter of PSO, Nandasan to M.O., Nandasan 11 5. Panchnama of clothes 12 6. MLC of Mustakali Ahmadmiya dated 28/01/1987 22 7. MLC of Mustakali Ahmadali of Nandasan 24 8. MLC of Abbasbhai Ahmadbhai of Nandasan 25 9. MLC of Halimabibi Ahmadbhai of Nandasan 26 10. Abstract copy of Kadi Police Station Diary dated 28/01/1987 29 11. Zerox copy of PM Note of Roshanali Chhotumiya dated 30/01/1987 33 12. Zerox copy of MLC of Roshanali Chhotumiya dated 28/01/1987 34 13. Zerox copy of MLC of Mahemoodmiya Gulamali dated 28/01/1987 35 14. Zerox copy of MLC of Mahemoodmiya dated 31/01/1987 36 15. Zerox copy of Certificate of Mahemoodmiya dated 31/01/1987 37 16. Zerox copy of MLC of Bibalbibi dated 28/01/1987 38 17. True copy of Panchnama of I. C.R. No. 29/87 dated 29/01/1987 39 18. Zerox copy of complaint of Nandasan dated 28/01/1987 40 2.7 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused u/S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of both the Sessions Cases of all the charges levelled against them by judgment and order dated 3rd March 1988 in both the Sessions Cases. 2.8 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant - State has preferred the present acquittal appeals. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari for the appellant - State drawn our attention to the judgment and order, passed in Sessions Case Nos. 2.8 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant - State has preferred the present acquittal appeals. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. L.R. Pujari for the appellant - State drawn our attention to the judgment and order, passed in Sessions Case Nos. 59 of 1987 and Sessions Case No. 142 of 1987, impugned in these appeals and also drawn our attention to the deposition of the complainant as well as the eye-witness and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record inasmuch as, the oral and documentary evidence have not been properly appreciated. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the chain of evidence, implicating the accused of Criminal Appeal No. 443 of 1988 (in Sessions Case Nos. 59 of 1987) towards his guilt, is complete and the appeals against the order of acquittal deserve consideration and acceptance and the appeals be allowed. 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 v. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6 SCC, 39, the Honourable 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 judgment 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.” 4.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 the Honourable 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, re-appreciate 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.” 4.2 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. 4.3 Even in a subsequent decision of Honourable 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. 4.3 Even in a subsequent decision of Honourable 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 characterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment 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.” 4.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Honourable the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. 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. 4.5 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. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 4.5 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 Honourable 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.” 4.6 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. 5. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the learned trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State. 5.1 The learned trial Judge has, in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987, discussed the medical evidence in Para 11 of the judgment and order. So far as injuries to deceased Roshanali is concerned, Dr. Parmar, who had examined deceased - Roshanali soon after the incident, noticed only one injury on head and it was CLW 2'' x ½'' on left parietal region. According to Dr. Parmar, there was no injury on right parietal region. It is an admitted fact that after Dr. Parmar examined the deceased, the deceased was shifted and Dr. Lad had examined him and it is important to note that Dr. Lad found four external injuries, each one a stitched wound on the head. According to Dr. Parmar, there was no injury on 'right parietal region', Dr. It is an admitted fact that after Dr. Parmar examined the deceased, the deceased was shifted and Dr. Lad had examined him and it is important to note that Dr. Lad found four external injuries, each one a stitched wound on the head. According to Dr. Parmar, there was no injury on 'right parietal region', Dr. Lad, on the other hand, besides the injuries on the left parietal region, found, two injuries on head, one being on the vertex and the other on 'right parietal region'. There are injuries Nos. 1 and 3 in the Post Mortem Note exh. 33. He found a fourth injury, which was on the 'right temporal region'. It is stated further in Para 11 that, 'this discrepancy is very material because according to Dr. Lad, it is not possible to say which particular injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him all the four injuries taken together were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the person. At the same time he has made it clear that the brain was not directly injured by troma or a direct blow. It was on account of extensive haemorrhage that the brain was damaged by the pressure'. 5.2 In Para 12 it is stated that, 'the question that logically arises is what happened to the patient after the patient was shifted from Kadi Hospital to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital and till the patient died. We do not have any evidence on record to show that patient received any further injuries during this period...'. 5.3 In Para 13 it is stated that, 'it has been argued before me by the prosecution that it is possible that Dr. Parmar could have missed the other injuries when he examined Roshanali at Kadi. It is also suggested that Dr. Laad when examined Roshanali's body did it with all the time at his disposal and therefore, he should be believed'. The Para further reads: 'I fail to understand the logic behind this argument. It is quite obvious that Dr. Parmar had examined Roshanali as soon as he was brought to the hospital at 7.0 in the evening. It we accept the description given by Dr. Laad of the injuries on the head it is not possible to accept the argument of the prosecution that Dr. Parmar missed these other injuries on the head. It is quite obvious that Dr. Parmar had examined Roshanali as soon as he was brought to the hospital at 7.0 in the evening. It we accept the description given by Dr. Laad of the injuries on the head it is not possible to accept the argument of the prosecution that Dr. Parmar missed these other injuries on the head. All the injuries reported by Dr. Laad were sutured wound. It is quite obvious that these injuries were bleeding and therefore, there is hardly any possibility that a doctor who noticed one injury on the head would miss other injuries on the head which were also bleeding. I am, therefore, not able to accept the prosecution version that Roshanali had received 4 injuries on the head'. 5.4 Para 14 of the judgment and order further states that, '... It is always prudent to accept the medical opinion of the doctor who has the first opportunity to examine the patient. We do find discrepancy in the evidence of Dr. Parmar of Kadi and Dr. Laad of Ahmedabad. But it is not our job to resolve or explain the discrepancy. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the testimony of Dr. Parmar particularly in view of the fact that Dr. Laad also opines that the brain of the deceased was not damaged by any injury but it was damaged by the haemorrhage which resulted from the injuries'. 5.5 In Para 15, it is stated that, '...For the reasons discussed earlier we have to rule out the other three injuries being caused to Roshanali in course of this incident. Therefore the logical conclusion is that death of Roshanali cannot be directly attributed to the injuries, which was received by him in course of the incident. My finding to point No. 1 is therefore, in negative'. 5.6 The learned Sessions Judge has taken all pains to appreciate the evidence led before him and discussed in detail relating to deposition of complainant - Mahemoodmiya Gulamali and found vital contradictions and improvement in story. The deposition of Bibalbibi also falsifies the version of the complainant that all the four persons had approached Roshanali in the 'Neliya' from direction of village. Considering all the aspects as a whole, we also find that it is clear that incident had not taken place as deposed by the prosecution witness. The deposition of Bibalbibi also falsifies the version of the complainant that all the four persons had approached Roshanali in the 'Neliya' from direction of village. Considering all the aspects as a whole, we also find that it is clear that incident had not taken place as deposed by the prosecution witness. Ultimately, vide Para 40, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove any offence against any of the accused and finally recorded acquittal of all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 6. We have also perused the judgment and order rendered in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1988 (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 1988). The learned Sessions Judge has, after taking into consideration all the oral as well as documentary evidence led before him and other relevant material produced on record, vide Para 16, rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the prosecution has not proved any offence against any of the accused and finally recorded the acquittal of all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 6.1 We have also gone through the entire evidence as discussed by the trial court. Considering the evidence emerging from the record we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. There are serious omissions, vital contradictions and improvement in story on the part of the prosecution. We are of the considered opinion that the learned trial court was 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 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 learned Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same. The appeals accordingly fail. 7. These Appeals are dismissed. The impugned and order dated 03.03.1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987 and Sessions Case No. 142 of 1987 are confirmed. Bail bonds in both the appeals stand cancelled. The appeals accordingly fail. 7. These Appeals are dismissed. The impugned and order dated 03.03.1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1987 and Sessions Case No. 142 of 1987 are confirmed. Bail bonds in both the appeals stand cancelled. 7.1 The office shall send back the original Record and Proceedings to the trial Court forthwith following the due procedure for the same. Appeals dismissed.