Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—Having been sentenced to ten years’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for three months under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 135 of B.P. Act by impugned judgement and order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2007, original Accused No. 1 – Haribhai Bhemabhai Bharwad, being aggrieved, is before this Court questioning the impugned judgment and order by way of filing Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2010. 2. On the other hand, State of Gujarat has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 2010 questioning the acquittal of original Accused No. 2 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504 & 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of B.P. Act vide impugned judgment and order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2007. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was filed by one Jagabhai Bhemabhai Thakore on 06.04.2007 that in the early morning hours of 06.04.2007, while he was sitting at the bus stop, he saw his father, mother and brother coming rushing from his house and going towards their farm. On asking them, they informed that when his brother Kanu and his wife were working in the field, original Accused No. 1 had sent his buffaloes to their field for grazing. As the complainant’s brother asked Accused No. 1 to take away his buffaloes, Accused No. 1 hit Kanu with a stick and therefore they were going to scold Accused No. 1. 3.1 It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant accompanied his parents and brother to the farm where accused persons were present. The complainant asked Accused No. 1 as to why he had hit Kanubhai with a stick to which the accused persons started abusing the complainant and his family members. 3.1 It is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant accompanied his parents and brother to the farm where accused persons were present. The complainant asked Accused No. 1 as to why he had hit Kanubhai with a stick to which the accused persons started abusing the complainant and his family members. It is the case of the prosecution that the father of the complainant asked them not to use such abusive language but on hearing this Accused No. 1 inflicted two to three blows on the head of complainant’s father who fell down. Thereafter, Accused No. 1 hit the complainant’s mother who was trying to save his father and she also sustained injury on fingers of her left hand. It is the case of the complainant that Accused No. 2 also hit his father on left shoulder. The complainant and his brother tried to save their parents but they were also given stick blows by the accused persons. They were then taken to Government Hospital, Patan and as the complainant’s father was injured more he was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. 3.2 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses: (i) P.W. 1 – Jagabhai Thakore Ex. 10 (ii) P.W. 2 – Lagdhirji Thakore Ex. 18 (iii) P.W. 3 – Kanubhai Thakore Ex. 22 (iv) P.W. 4 – Bhemabhai Thakore Ex. 23 (v) P.W. 5 – Muliben Thakore Ex. 24 (vi) P.W. 6 – Dr. Amar Pandya Ex. 25 (vii) P.W. 7 – PSO Dineshbhai Bhalabhai Ex. 30 (viii) P.W. 8 – Dr. Vikrambhai Parghi Ex. 36 (ix) P.W. 9 – PSI Kanaksinh Rathod Ex. 40 3.3 The prosecution also exhibited the following documents: (i) Depute Order Ex. 31 (ii) Complaint Ex. 11 (iii) Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 12 (iv) Panchnama of clothes of injured Ex. 13 (v) Police yadi for preparing map Ex. 14 (vi) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 15 (vii) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 16 (viii) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 17 (ix) Panchnama of seizure of weapon Ex. 31 (ii) Complaint Ex. 11 (iii) Panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 12 (iv) Panchnama of clothes of injured Ex. 13 (v) Police yadi for preparing map Ex. 14 (vi) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 15 (vii) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 16 (viii) Muddamal dispatch note Ex. 17 (ix) Panchnama of seizure of weapon Ex. 19 (x) Signature slips of panchas Ex. 20 (xi) Signature slips of panchas Ex. 21 (xii) Treatment certificate of Bhemaji Ex. 26 (xiii) Injury certificate of Kanabhai Ex. 27 (xiv) Treatment certificate of Muliben Ex. 28 (xv) Treatment certificate of Jagabhai Ex. 29 (xvi) Treatment certificate of Bhemaji Ex. 37 (xvii) Case papers of Bhemaji Ex. 38 (xviii) X-ray report of Bhemaji Ex. 39 (xix) FSL report Ex. 41 (xx) FSL analysis Ex. 42 (xxi) Serological analysis report Ex. 43 (xxii) Notification of prohibition of weapon Ex. 44 (xxiii) Copy of complaint Ex. 45 (xxiv) Injury certificate of Sureshbhai Ex. 46 (xxv) Injury certificate of Jerabhai Ex. 47 (xxvi) C.T scan report of Bhemaji Ex. 48 (xxvii) Closure pursis Ex. 49 3.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted original Accused No. 1 as mentioned aforesaid. The Court below acquitted original Accused No. 2. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court, the present appeals have been preferred. 4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for original Accused No. 1, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case fairly limited his arguments to the quantum of sentence. Mr. Patel submitted that even if it is assumed that the case of the prosecution is true as stated and considering the evidence of P.W. 6 & 8, the sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 is on higher side. He submitted that it was a free fight and that the original complainant and his family members were the aggressors and fought over a trivial issue without any premeditation. Mr. He submitted that it was a free fight and that the original complainant and his family members were the aggressors and fought over a trivial issue without any premeditation. Mr. Patel submitted that the relatives of accused are also injured and therefore even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, considering the injuries sustained by the injured and the factum that the issue was a free fight wherein a cross complaint was also filed against the complainant and the injured, the impugned judgement and order of the trial Court is required to be interfered with and modified as far as quantum of sentence is concerned. 5. On the other hand, Mr. H.S. Soni, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the trial Court committed an error in acquitting original accused no . 2. It was contended by Mr. Soni that so far as the acquittal of original Accused No. 2 is concerned, the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions 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. 5.1 Mr. Soni further submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 is just and proper and does not deserve to be interfered with. He has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 6. We have heard learned advocates for the parties. We have gone through the medical evidence on record. The appeal preferred by original Accused No. 1 is heard only qua quantum of sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. According to the evidence, the injured witness sustained the following external injuries : Bhemaji Velaji Thakore : “Stitch wound on bilateral parietal. CT Scan Report from (Patan) s/o Linear # Lt. Tempo parietal & EDH in Lt. Tempo-parietal. Scalp hemateuna in Lt. Tempo – parietal region.” Kanabhai Bhemabhai Thakore : “(1) Pain & tenderness +nt over Lt. Parietal Region. No bleeding. (2) Pain & tenderness +nt Lt. Forearm. No bleeding.” Muliben Bhemaji Thakore : “(1) CLW +nt over Lt. Hand No tender rupture about 5 x 2 cm. (2) DTS +nt Lt. Shoulder (3) (3) CLW +nt Rt. Little finger” Jagabhai BhemabhaiThakore : “(1) DTS +nt Lt. Parietal Region. No bleeding. (2) Pain & tenderness +nt Lt. Forearm. No bleeding.” Muliben Bhemaji Thakore : “(1) CLW +nt over Lt. Hand No tender rupture about 5 x 2 cm. (2) DTS +nt Lt. Shoulder (3) (3) CLW +nt Rt. Little finger” Jagabhai BhemabhaiThakore : “(1) DTS +nt Lt. Parietal region (2) CLW +nt Lt Thumb about 1x1/2 cm (3) Tenderness over penis.” 7. According to P.W. 6 – Dr. Amar Singh, who treated injured Bhemaji Thakore has deposed vide his deposition at Ex. 25 that the patient was semi conscious when brought to the hospital with injuries. This witness has deposed that the injured had sustained injuries on his head and that the injuries sustained by him were possible by way of a sharp edged weapon and also by way of a blunt weapon. 7.1 P.W. 1 is the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has stated that in the early morning hours of 06.04.2007, while he was sitting at the bus stop, he saw his father, mother and brother coming rushing from his house and going towards their farm. On asking them, they informed that when his brother Kanu and Kanu’s wife were working in the field, original Accused No. 1 had sent his buffaloes to their field for grazing. As his witness’s brother asked Accused No. 1 to take away his buffaloes, Accused No. 1 hit Kanu with a stick and therefore they were going to scold Accused No. 1. 7.2 P.W. 1 further deposed that he accompanied his parents and brother to the farm where accused persons were present and asked Accused No. 1 as to why he had hit Kanubhai with a stick to which the accused persons started abusing the him and his family members. P.W. 1 has stated that his father asked them not to use such abusive language but on hearing this Accused No. 1 inflicted two to three blows on the head of P.W.1’s father who fell down. Thereafter, Accused No. 1 hit his mother who was trying to save his father and she also sustained injury on fingers of her left hand. It is further submitted that Accused No. 2 also hit his father on left shoulder. P.W. 1 and his brother tried to save their parents but they were also given stick blows by the accused persons. It is further submitted that Accused No. 2 also hit his father on left shoulder. P.W. 1 and his brother tried to save their parents but they were also given stick blows by the accused persons. They were then taken to Government Hospital, Patan and as the P.W 1’s father was injured more he was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. 7.3 P.W. 2 is the panch witness who has supported the panchnama. P.W. 3 – Kanubhai Thakore, vide his deposition at Ex. 22, has also supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has stated that on the date of incident when he was in his field along with his sister-in-law, original Accused No. 1’s buffalo came grazing in his field and when he objected, original Accused No. 1 started abusing him and hit him on his head with a stick. This witness has further deposed that he went home and informed his father about the assault. Hearing this, P.W. 3’s father and mother rushed to the field and on the way they met the complainant (P.W. 1) who also accompanied them to the field. This witness has further stated that when they reached the field, the accused persons were present there and when his father inquired about the assault, the accused started abusing him and a fight ensued. 8. It is also required to be seen that a cross complaint had also been filed against the complainant and his family members by accused that on 06.04.2007 while he was in his field with his cattle, the complainant and his family members came there and started abusing the accused. It is stated that the complainant inflicted dhariya blow on the head of Jerambhai due to which he sustained injuries and started bleeding. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts, the entire episode seems to be a work of free fight. A free fight is when both sides mean to fight from the start, go out to fight and there is pitched battle. The question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly immaterial and depends on the tactics adopted by the rival commanders. Even accused and his family members had sustained injuries as is clear from the records. It is also clear that the assault by accused was at the spur of moment when his relative was attacked. The question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly immaterial and depends on the tactics adopted by the rival commanders. Even accused and his family members had sustained injuries as is clear from the records. It is also clear that the assault by accused was at the spur of moment when his relative was attacked. It appears that the assault was made in order to defend his family members. However, the fact remains that the offence is said to have been committed and original Accused No. 1 appears to have been driven by a grave and sudden provocation after the confrontation with the complainant and his family members which resulted into a free fight where members of both the sides were injured. 10. Having considered minutely the evidence on record, oral as well as documentary, which we have appreciated, re-appreciated and reconsidered in light of the latest decision of the Apex Court we find that the finding of facts as far as the conviction of the original Accused No. 1 under Sections 307 & 324 cannot be found any fault with. It is required to be noted that the injured witness – Bhemaji Thakore was in hospital for twelve days. In that view of the matter, we think it fit to reduce the sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 under Section 307, IPC. 11. As far as the acquittal of original Accused No. 2 is concerned, 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. In Para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: “54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below.” 11.1 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. [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. 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.” 11.2 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. 11.3 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 judgement delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. 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.” 11.4 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. 11.5 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. Some of the so-called eye-witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle 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 a running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgement 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.” 11.6 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 in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. 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 in 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 sc an 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 mo re 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 an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]” 11.7 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give fresh reasoning’s, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]” 11.7 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgement or to give fresh reasoning’s, 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.” 11.8 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary. 12. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have appreciated, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. We find that the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the trial Court with regard to the role of original Accused No. 2 are not required to be interfered with. The appeal filed by respondent – State does not have any merits and is required to be dismissed. 13. In the present case, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the role of original Accused No. 1 is clear from the records. However, the point which has also weighed with this Court are that the injured witness was hospitalized for twelve days and the entire episode seemed to have been an incident of free fight where the accused persons and his family members also got injured. In that view of the matter, we think it fit that interest of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to five years and the punishment in default of fine is reduced to three months. In that view of the matter, we think it fit that interest of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 under Section 307 of IPC is reduced to five years and the punishment in default of fine is reduced to three months. Accordingly, the following order is passed. 14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 535 of 2010 is hereby dismissed. The judgement and order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2007 is confirmed qua the acquittal of original Accused No. 2 under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504 & 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of B.P. Act. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled qua original Accused No. 2. 15. So far as original Accused No. 1 is concerned, Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2010 is partly allowed. The conviction of original Accused No. 1 under Sections 307 & 324 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of B.P. Act vide judgment and order dated 29.12.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2007 is upheld. 16. However, the sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patan under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is modified and the sentence of ten years is reduced to five years. The sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 to be undergone in default of payment of fine under Section 307 is also modified and the sentence of one year is reduced to three months. Accordingly, original Accused No. 1 is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 2000/- in default simple imprisonment for three months under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. 17. The sentence imposed upon original Accused No. 1 under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of B.P. Act is confirmed. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by original Accused No. 1 shall be considered for remission and set off in accordance with law. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.