JUDGMENT : Mr. K.S. Jhaveri, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 24-9-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Fast Track Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2003 whereby the respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. ]2. Learned advocate, Mr. Param Buch for Mr. Hriday Buch for the original accused submitted that accused No. 1-Vajsi Punja Odedara Mer and accused No. 5-Balu Punja Odedara Mer have died and therefore, this appeal requires to be abated qua original accused Nos. 1 and 5. In view of the same, this appeal is required to be abated qua accused Nos. 1 and 5. Xerox copies of death certificates of accused Nos. 1 and 5 produced by learned advocate for the accused are ordered to be taken on record. 3. Short facts of the case of the prosecution are a complaint was filed by the complainant-Varjangbhai Punjabhai Garchar alleging inter alia that on 11-7-2003 at about 12 noon, the complainant along with his younger brother Naran Punja went to the residence of Arjan Bhura as he demanded some money from him where Arjan Bhura was present. After some time, younger brother Naran Punja went to pay telephone bill and returned and after 15 to 20 minutes, when they were about to leave the place of Arjan Bhura, his younger brother Naran Punja went outside of the house of Arjan Bhura. However, when he heard the shouts of his brother "save, save”, he ran outside the house of Arjan Bhura and found that Mer Vajsi Punja armed with axe, Ranmal Vajsi armed with dharia, son of Vajsi Punja armed with stick, elder son of Bogha Punja armed with stick were attacking his younger brother Naran Punja and Vajsi Punja armed with axe was inflicting blow on the head of his younger brother where he fell on the ground. Ranmal Vajsi and sons of Vajsi Punja and Bogha Punja have also inflicted blows on Naran Punja. When the complainant shouted at them, they followed the complainant. However, he got frightened and ran away and informed his uncle Bhikhan Dayabhai and they returned to the place of incident and found Naran Punja in a pool of blood and he succumbed to those injuries. When the complainant shouted at them, they followed the complainant. However, he got frightened and ran away and informed his uncle Bhikhan Dayabhai and they returned to the place of incident and found Naran Punja in a pool of blood and he succumbed to those injuries. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined following witnesses: P.W. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Babusha Bafatisha 18 2 Hasnakha Amdakha 20 3 Sarvarkha Rahemankha 22 4 Viram Karshanbhai 23 5 Mansukh Naranbhai 24 6 Bhikhan Karshan 25 7 Sarman Sajan 26 8 Damji Bhurabhai 27 9 Rupesh Bhikha Vaghela 28 10 Ranjit Naranbhai 29 11 Dr. Masribhai Jodhabhai Chhatrodiya 34 12 Varjangbhai Punjabhai 45 13 Rambhiben Arjanbhai 48 14 Arjanbhai Bhurabhai Odedara 49 15 Mesurbhai Parbatbhai 51 16 Karshanbhai Gangabhai Mori 52 17 Manharlal Karshanlal Maheta 55 18 Sevadas Premdas Ramanandi 60 19 Subhashbhai Bhogabhai Vadher 63 3.2 The prosecution also relied on following documentary evidence : Sr. Masribhai Jodhabhai Chhatrodiya 34 12 Varjangbhai Punjabhai 45 13 Rambhiben Arjanbhai 48 14 Arjanbhai Bhurabhai Odedara 49 15 Mesurbhai Parbatbhai 51 16 Karshanbhai Gangabhai Mori 52 17 Manharlal Karshanlal Maheta 55 18 Sevadas Premdas Ramanandi 60 19 Subhashbhai Bhogabhai Vadher 63 3.2 The prosecution also relied on following documentary evidence : Sr. No. Description Exhibit No. 1 Inquest panchnama 19 2 Panchnama of place of incident 21 3 Panchnama of muddamal found on the body of the deceased 30 4 P.M. note of the deceased 38 5 Medical Certificate of injured Rambhiben 39 6 Cause of death certificate issued by Medical Officer, Mangrol 41 7 Original complaint of complainant Varjang Punjabhai 46 8 Copy of Entry No. 14/03 of Mangrol Police Station 53 9 Copy of D.O.Register No. 177/03 of Mangrol Police Station 54 10 Copy of complaint No.0/3 of Mangrol Police Station 56 11 Yadi sent by Mangrol Police Station to Shil Police Station for noting or investigating the offence 57 12 Marnotar Form 58 13 Receipt for handing over dead body of the deceased 59 14 Copy of FIR being C.R.No.I-34/03 of Shil Police Station 61 15 Copy of C.R. No. I-34/03 of Shil Police Station 62 16 Report for adding section 64 17 Panchnama of Surname of accused 65 18 Discovery panchnama 66 to 67 19 Panchnama of seizure and Investigation on motor cycle tank 68 20 Forwarding noting of muddamal 69 21 FSL receipt of muddamal 70 22 Notification relating to arms 71 23 Forwarding letter of FSL 72 24 Report of FSL 73 25 Scientific report 74 26 Serological forwarding letter 75 27 Serological report 76 3.3 After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, respondents accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, giving rise to this appeal. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Param Buch for Mr. Hriday Buch for respondents-accused. 5. Learned APP, Ms. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, respondents accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, giving rise to this appeal. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Mr. Param Buch for Mr. Hriday Buch for respondents-accused. 5. Learned APP, Ms. Shah for the appellant, took us through the evidence of P.W.No. 12-Varjangbhai Punjabhai, who is the complainant and eye witnesses P.W.No. 13- Rambhiben Arjanbhai, P.W.No. 14-Arjanbhai Bhurabhai Odedara, P.W.No. 15-Mesurbhai Parbatbhai and PSO, P.W.No. 16-Karshanbhai Gangabhai Mori and contended that in view of the evidence of these witnesses, case against the accused has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. She further contended that the evidence of aforesaid witnesses get full support from the evidence of doctor, Dr. Masribhai Jodhabhai Chhatrodiya, Medical Officer, who performed post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, wherein he has deposed that death of the deceased was caused due to injuries over the brain and multiple injuries over the body. In view of the above, she contended that all the ingredients of the offences charged against the accused have been proved and therefore, the accused ought to have been convicted, however, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that though the prosecution has examined several witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated their evidence and therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused by leading legal, reliable and impeachable evidence is contrary to the evidence available on record. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. Param Buch for Mr. Hriday Buch for the respondents-original accused, on the other hand, submitted that the complainant while taking the victim to the hospital did not inform the police although police check post was on the way to the hospital. According to him, there are serious contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Presence of three witnesses are not referred to by the complainant in his evidence nor in the evidence of Rambhiben and therefore, presence of Arjan could not be proved. According to him, there are serious contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Presence of three witnesses are not referred to by the complainant in his evidence nor in the evidence of Rambhiben and therefore, presence of Arjan could not be proved. Taking us through paragraphs 43 and 44 of the impugned judgment, he contended that as the case against the accused could not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the respondents accused were rightly acquitted by the trial court. He 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, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. He ultimately urged to dismiss this appeal. 7. It is required to be noted that the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions. 7.1 In the case of Dilawar Singh and others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015)1 SCC 737 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 36 and 37 as under: "36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record. 37. In Chandrappa and ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: "42…..(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. 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.” Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2012) 1 SCC 602 .” 7.2 In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and anr. reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 16 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.” 7.3 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and ors., reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 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 postmortem 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." 7.4 Even in the case of Mookkiah and anr. v. 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 levelled 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 appellant very much emphasised that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyse 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 an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]" 7.5 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite 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 Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93 :( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate 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.” 7.6 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and ors. v. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 7.7 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then elaborate discussion of evidence or assigning fresh reasons are not necessary. 8. We have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 9. It appears from the oral as well as documentary evidences on record that there are serious contradictions and omissions in the evidence of three important witnesses namely, P.W.No. 12-complainant, P.W.No. 13-Rambhiben and P.W.No. 14-Arjanbhai Bhurabhai. In that view of the matter, it was held by the trial court that prosecution could not prove through the evidence of any of the witnesses that the accused are liable for causing the death of the deceased. In that view of the matter, it was held by the trial court that prosecution could not prove through the evidence of any of the witnesses that the accused are liable for causing the death of the deceased. Therefore, though the unfortunate incident of causing death of the deceased took place, no evidence could be put forward by prosecution for proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial court, on an elaborate discussion of the entire oral and documentary evidence in true perspective, has acquitted the accused. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it in the said findings and therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the same. 10. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence to take a view contrary to the view taken by the trial court 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. 11. In the result, the appeal qua accused No. 1-Vajsi Punja Odedara Mer and accused No. 5-Balu Punja Odedara Mer stands abated. Appeal qua other accused stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 24-9-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Fast Track Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2003 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings, if any, shall be sent back forthwith to the trial court. Appeal dismissed.