JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. The present appeal, under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') is directed against the judgment and order dated 06/05/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2000, whereby the respondents herein - original accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25/08/1999 at about 23:00 hours, near Sangam Talkies, in the cycle stand, deceased Kanubhai Jivanbhai Bharwad and witness Pravin Thakarshi and Arjan Polabhai and the respondents herein - original accused had quarrelled as to the rent, during which, the accused, in furtherance of their common object, assaulted the deceased with spade and iron pipe, due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries and for the said alleged offence, a complaint came to be lodged against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar. 2.2 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 2.3 In order to bring home the charge against the respondents - original accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced following documentary evidence, as under: Sr.no. Name Exh. 1. Rajubhai Amarshibhai 18 2. Nandlal Tolaram Sindhi 20 3. Rameshbhai Chandubhai 23 4. Gantibhai Kasambhai 24 5. Kiritbhai Gunubhai 26 6. Manubhai Jivrajbhai 29 7. Ashokbhi Dubabhai 30 8. Pravinbhai Thakarshibhai 31 9. Arjanbhai Sagrambhai 33 10. Bharatbhai Sagrambhai 33 11. Khimjibhai Valubhai 34 12. Shankarbhai keshubhai 35 13. Nileshbhai Harshadrai 36 14. Ambalal Laljibhai 37 15. Mahenrasinh Harisinh 38 16. Shivabhai Nagjibhai 39 17. Mahendra sinh 40 18. Valubhai Pragjibhai 41 19. Govindbhai Jethalal 57 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1. Panchnama of place of offence 19 2. Arrest Panchnama 21 3. Arrest Panchnama 22 4. PM Note 25 5. Arrest panchnama 27 6. Discovery panchnama 28 7. Nileshbhai Harshadrai 36 14. Ambalal Laljibhai 37 15. Mahenrasinh Harisinh 38 16. Shivabhai Nagjibhai 39 17. Mahendra sinh 40 18. Valubhai Pragjibhai 41 19. Govindbhai Jethalal 57 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1. Panchnama of place of offence 19 2. Arrest Panchnama 21 3. Arrest Panchnama 22 4. PM Note 25 5. Arrest panchnama 27 6. Discovery panchnama 28 7. Yadi as to assigning investigation 44 8. Report as to major offence 45 9. Yadi as to assigning janvajog investigation 46 10. Post Mortem form 47 11. Inquest Panchnama 48 12. Notification 50 13. Receipt of FSL 51 14. Letter to FSL 52 15. Analysis Report 53 16. Serological Report 54 17. Complaint 58 18. Letter to FSL 59 19. Ravangi Nodh 60 20. Yadi to MO for PM 61 21. Yadi to MO 62 22. Yadi to MO 63 23. Yadi to MO 64 24. Yadi as to Map 65 25. Yadi as to taking photographs of the deadbody 66 26. Panchnama as to seizure of articles from the dead body 49 27. Yadi as to registration of offence 43 28. Copy of extract of Station Diary 42 2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against him by impugned judgment and order. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal. 3. Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State took us to the evidence of PW-8 - Pravinbhai Thakarshibhai, exh. 31 and the evidence of PW-9 - Arjanbhai Polabhai, exh. 32, who were claiming to have accompanied the deceased when the alleged offence had taken place and claiming to be the eye-witnesses of the incident and submitted that in view of the evidence of these eye-witnesses and the medical evidence and the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the injuries and the act of the accused, have been proved beyond reasonable doubt Moreover, she contended that in view of the evidence of Ganibhai Kasambhai, exh. 24 and the evidence of the Medical Officer and other witnesses, this is a fit case where the respondents - original accused are required to be convicted for the alleged offence. 24 and the evidence of the Medical Officer and other witnesses, this is a fit case where the respondents - original accused are required to be convicted for the alleged offence. She also took us to the Arrest Panchnamas at exhs. 21 and 22 and also to the complaint, exh. 58 and contended that in view of these evidence, the blood stains were found from the clothes of the accused and accordingly, when the offence is proved against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge, having committed a grave error, this Court may interfere in the appeal and convict the accused, in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the respondents - original accused, supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law, does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. It is also submitted that the learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, more particularly, in para 18, 90 and 22 to 30 of the impugned judgment and order, has come to such a conclusion, which is just and proper and when the learned trial Judge, after duly appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before him, has come to such a conclusion, this being an appeal against acquittal, this Court should not interfere in appeal. He submitted that one of the accused earlier was cited as witness, however, afterwards he was arraigned as accused. He also pointed out that the prosecution has failed to establish to hold the Test Identification Parade. Moreover, initially the names of the accused were not shown in the complaint and how come their names were added as accused, the prosecution is not in a position to explain the same. In aforesaid view of the matter, he requested to dismiss the present appeal. 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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, reappreciate 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. [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 powers, 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 Hon'ble 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 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. 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." 5.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble 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. 5.5 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors., reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Hon'ble 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 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." 5.6 Even in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 4 has held as under: "4. v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Hon'ble 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 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 an acquittal.[Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4520 : 2004 AIR SCW 4321)]" 5.7 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 Hon'ble 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." 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 at length is not necessary. 6. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it. Taking into consideration the fact that the names of the accused were not shown at the first instance in the complaint and the fact that the so-called eye-witnesses to the incident had run-away when a close friend i.e. deceased was allegedly being beaten by the accused, creates doubt in the prosecution case. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. 7. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charge levelled against them are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. No interference is warranted with the judgment and order of the trial Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 06/05/2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 59 of 2000 is confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if any, to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal Dismissed