Judgment K.J. Thaker, J.—The present appellant-State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 28.4.2005 passed by the learned 5th Fast Track Court Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 117/2000, whereby, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondents of the charges leveled against them. 2.1 The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 15.8.2000 at about 7.30pm to 8.00pm, when complainant was to take supper, at that time, Chandrasinh son of his younger brother and Kumar son of his cousin brother had gone to village for engaging labourers. Thereafter, at about 8.00pm, one Kanjibhai had informed the complainant that two persons of your family are lying near the shop of Vaju Kanji. Therefore, complainant, his cousin brother Natubhai, Chandubhai and Ravjibhai went to the shop of Vaju Kanji where they found Chandrasinh son of his younger brother and Kumar son of his cousin brother son of his younger brother and Kumar son of his cousin brother in injured condition in the street opposite to the said shop. At that time, wife of one Ranjitbhai and other women who were present there, had informed the complainant that present respondents have assaulted the Chandrasinh and Kumar with deadly weapons like sword, dhariya,Axe and went away. Thereafter, both the injured persons were taken to the Government Hospital, at Jetpur, in the meantime, Chandrasinh had died and since Kumar was serious, he was taken to Rajkot hospital. 2.2 The respondents - accused came to be arraigned for committing the murder and after the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet was laid against the present respondents. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was given number as Sessions Case No. 117/2000. 2.3 Thereafter, the Sessions Court framed the charge below Exh. 1 against the respondents for commission of the offence under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the B.P. Act. The respondents-accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 To prove the case against the present respondents, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. Bhanjibhai Nanjibhai Dhandhal, CPI, Ex. 44 2. Raghubhai Mansukhbhai Ex. 67 3. Mahmadbhai Abubhai Ex. 69 4. Madhubhai Bhimbhai Vala Ex. 70 5. Bhavinising Mansing Chauhan Ex. 72 6. The respondents-accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.4 To prove the case against the present respondents, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: 1. Bhanjibhai Nanjibhai Dhandhal, CPI, Ex. 44 2. Raghubhai Mansukhbhai Ex. 67 3. Mahmadbhai Abubhai Ex. 69 4. Madhubhai Bhimbhai Vala Ex. 70 5. Bhavinising Mansing Chauhan Ex. 72 6. Rajubhai Bhalajibhai Ex. 75 7. Mukeshbhai Ramjibhai Ex. 76 8. Manojbhai Takhubhai Ex. 78 9. Suresh Bhanubhai Ex. 81 10. Madhubhai Chanabhai Ex. 82 11. Yogeshvan Raghuvan Ex. 84 12. Navabkha Hajikha Ex. 85 13. Mahebubbhai Osmanbhai Ex. 88 14. Hemantbhai Kanjibhai Ex. 90 15. Meghjibhai Lavabhai Ex. 95 16. Nanjibhai Laxmanbhai Ex. 98 17. Bharatsinh Bhojubha Jadeja Ex. 102 18. Ramaben Ranjitbhai Ex. 105 19. Manubhai Bachubhai Ex. 111 20. Kalubhai Jivabhai Ex. 112 21. Dr. Nikita Bharatbhai Padiya Ex. 113 22. Dr. Naginbhai Bhovanbhai Sarvaiya Ex. 122 23. Dr. Hemang Harishchandra Vasavada Ex. 135 24. Hitendrasinh Natvarsinh Ex. 139 25. BharatbhaiGovindbhai Ex. 140 26. Bahadurbhai Ranjitbhai Ex. 142 27. Kanjibhai Laxmanbhai Ex. 143 28. Kumarsinh Raisinh Ex. 147 29. Lakhubha Bhurubha Chudasama, PSI, Ex. 148 30. Kantaben w/o Nathabhai, ASI Ex. 163 2.5 The prosecution also relied upon the following documentary evidences so as to bring home the charges against the respondents-accused. 1. Yadi Ex. 45 2. Map Ex. 46 3. Panch rojkam Ex. 47 4. Rough map Ex. 48 5. Inquest panchnama Ex. 68 6. Panchnama of scene of offence place Ex. 71 7. Panchnama of clothes of injured Ex. 73 8. Panchnama of clothes of deceased Ex. 77 9. Panchnama of person of injured Ex. 79 10. Panchnama of clothes of accused Ex. 83 11. Panchnama of clothes of accused Ex.86 12. Panchnama of clothes of accused Ex. 87 13. FIR Ex. 91 14. Arrest panchnama Ex. 96 15. Panchnama of muddamal weapon Ex. 99, 100 & 101 16. Arrest panchanama Ex. 103 17. Case papers of injured Ex. 114 & 115 18. Case papers of injured Ex. 116 19. Yadi for PM Ex. 117. 20. Forwarding letter Ex. 118 21. Yadi for PM Ex. 119 22. Certificate of blood group of accused Ex. 120 23. OPD case of Kalu Devayat Ex. 121 24. Certificate of blood group of accused Ex. 123 25. Yadi for blood group of accused Ex. 124 26. Copy of Yadi for blood group of accused Ex. 125 27. 117. 20. Forwarding letter Ex. 118 21. Yadi for PM Ex. 119 22. Certificate of blood group of accused Ex. 120 23. OPD case of Kalu Devayat Ex. 121 24. Certificate of blood group of accused Ex. 123 25. Yadi for blood group of accused Ex. 124 26. Copy of Yadi for blood group of accused Ex. 125 27. Case papers of blood group of accused Ex. 126 to 134 28. Injury certificate of Kumar Ex. 136 29. Letter Ex. 137 30. Refer note of injured Kumar Ex. 138 31. Forwarding letter of complaint Ex. 149 32. Report to Higher Officer by PSO Ex. 150 33. Yadi for PM Ex. 151 34. Yadi for blood sample of Kalu Devayat Ex. 152 35. Letter to FSL sending muddamal Ex. 153 36. Receipt of FSL Ex. 154 37. Forwarding letter of Chemical analyser Ex. 155 38. C.A. Report Ex. 156 39. Forwarding letter Ex. 157 40. Serological report Ex. 158 41. Station diary Nondh No. 28 Ex. 159 42. Station diary Nondh No. 29 Ex. 160 43. Station diary Nondh No. 30 Ex. 161 44. Notification Ex. 162 2.6 Thereafter, after examining the witnesses, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded in which the accused have denied the case of the prosecution. 3.1 After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.2005 acquitted the present respondents- original accused No. 2, 3 and 5 to of the charge levelled against them. 3.2 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 3.3 We have heard learned APP Ms. CM Shah for the appellant-State and Mr Ashish M. Dagli learned advocate for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 9. Appeal qua respondent No. 3 is abated. 4.1 It was contended by learned APP Ms. Shah that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court 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 respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 5. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 5. 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 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.” 5.1 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, 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. 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.” 5.2 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. 5.3 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa vs. 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 judgment delivered by the Court below. 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.” 5.4 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 M.P., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 5.5 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 re-asonings, 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: “… This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi vs. 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.” 5.6 In the case of Luna Ram vs. Bhupat Singh and Ors., reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in Paras 10 and 11 has held as under: “10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so-called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his anke was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence. 5.7 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in Para-4 has held as under: “4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate Court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the Court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against the acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ] 5.8 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. 6.1 We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. Learned APP has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vahaji Ravaji Thakore & Anr. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004(1) GLR 777 , wherein it is held that the presence of eye witness is not doubtful, their evidence cannot be brushed aside merely because witness is related to the victim. However, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the recent decision in the case of Manuwa vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1764 , has held that Appellate Court can reappreciate the evidence, however, cannot interfere with acquittal if on evidence two views are possible. In the present case, no eye witness has corroborated the evidence showing the presence of present respondents. The injured witness PW-28 Kumarsinh Raisinh Ex. 147, has categorically stated in his evidence that though other accused were present there but only Vaju Kana had inflicted injuries. The trial Court while considering the oral as well as documentary evidence has clearly observed that there is no any evidence to convict the respondents. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6.2 Ms. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6.2 Ms. Shah 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. 7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. 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 requires to be dismissed. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.4.2005 passed by the learned 5th Fast Track Court Judge, Gondal in Sessions Case No. 117/2000 is confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.