JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State Ms. C.M. Shah and learned Advocate for the respondents - original accused Mr. Umang H. Oza. 2. By way of Criminal Appeal No. 1857/2010, the Appellant - State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.03.2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2008 whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections323, 324, 325, 326 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The case in brief is as under:- 3.1. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused in connivance with each other on account of an old rivalry and in order to take revenge and with an intention to cause grave injury caused serious injuries to witness - Laljibhai Karsanbhai Koli with an axe and the stick on the head as well as legs and on back side and thereby committed the above cited offences. 3.2. On complaint being lodged, investigation was carried out and ultimately the chargesheet came to be filed. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1166/2001 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Botad tried the case and convicted the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code; for the offence punishable under Sections323 and 324 sentenced them to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. However, the learned Judge also gave the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act to the accused No. 1. 3.3. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code; for the offence punishable under Sections323 and 324 sentenced them to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. However, the learned Judge also gave the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act to the accused No. 1. 3.3. Against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2008 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Botad in Criminal Case No. 1166/2001, the respondents accused preferred an Appeal before the Sessions Court, Botad under the provisions of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Appeal No. 10/2008 which came to be heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhavnagar Camp at Botad and by the judgment and order dated 09.03.2010, the said appeal was allowed quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Magistrate. It is against this judgment and order dt.09.03.2010 that the appellant - State has preferred this Appeal. 3.4. At the time of the trial, the prosecution had examined witnesses and had relied on several oral and documentary evidence. 3.5. It is pertinent to note that this Court on 05.10.2015 passed the order to the effect to re-number the Criminal Case No. 1166/2011 and be listed before this Court and accordingly Criminal Appeal No. 1282/2015 is filed as reminder. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have considered the evidence of original complainant - Bijal Karsan who had been examined at Exhibit 12 whereby the complaint produced at Exhibit 13 gets corroborated. From the evidence of the complainant, it is proved that Hathibhai gave an axe blow on the head of Lalji and Somkubhai and Aalokbhai gave stick blows on the backside as well as on the legs. Thus, all the three accused persons in connivance with each other had caused grievous hurt, with the respective weapons. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that is revealed from the evidence of the panch witness to the panchnama. Though this witness was declared hostile, the fact of the blood lying there was that of Lalji has been admitted by this witness. It is further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that is revealed from the evidence of the panch witness to the panchnama. Though this witness was declared hostile, the fact of the blood lying there was that of Lalji has been admitted by this witness. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires interference of this Court and the judgment and order of the learned Judge be upturned. 5. Learned Advocate for the respondents -accused No. 1-3 Mr. Umang H. Oza has relied on the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are detailed hereinbelow and has further submitted that the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Judge requires no interference by this Court: 5.1. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 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." 5.2. Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 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. [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." 5.3. 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. 5.4. Even in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex 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." 5.5. 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 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. 5.6. In the case of Luna Ram Vs. 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. 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 running condition. 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 Mookkiah and Anr. Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SCC 321 , the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:- "4. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SCC 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 appellant 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 vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]." 5.8. 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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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." 5.9. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 6. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case. While going through the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of evidence, it is clearly held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. Further, no independent witnesses were examined and there are serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution. Hence, the benefit of doubt granted to the accused requires to be confirmed by this Court. Therefore, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in our view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 1857/2010 filed by the State against acquittal is devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.03.2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2008 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.03.2010 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhavnagar, Camp at Botad in Criminal Appeal No. 10/2008 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 1282/2015, we recall our order dated 05.10.2015 and the registration of the criminal case be cancelled and the appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.