JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 6, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2003 whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased and respondent - accused were studying in a Madrassa at Nandasan. The respondent - accused had taken Rs. 1000/- from the deceased and upon demanding the same back from the respondent - accused, the accused on 25.07.2003 took the deceased to the sim of Nandasan village and near tube-well of Hamidkhan Pathan and assaulted the deceased with lathi. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused gave lathi blow on the head of the deceased and thereafter inflicted knife blow over abdomen and other vital part of the body. The deceased succumbed to the injuries and thereafter the accused threw away the dead body into the well. A complaint was therefore lodged. Pursuant to the complaint, panchnama was drawn and 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 Court of Sessions. 2.1 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 the following witnesses as oral evidence whose evidence have been read out before us : P.W. No. Name of Witness Exhibit No. 1 Mohammad Yahiya Ajgarali Saiyed 37 2 Ayubali Gulamali Saiyed 38 3 Mohammad Junaid Roshanali Saiyed 41 4 Hussain Anwar Hussain 42 5 Zubedabibi Pathan 45 6 Salman Usmanbhai Kureshi 47 7 Mohammaduveshkhan Pathan 48 8 Mustufa Saiyed 49 9 Musabhai Kureshi 53 10 Dahyabhai Kachrabhai 59 11 Dadabhai Ghasura 64 12 Rajendrakumar Acharya 66 13 Ramanlal Thavarji 68 14 Mohammad Ishtiyak Mohammad Khalil 71 15 Pruthvibhai Parmar 72 2.2 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us: Sr. No. Name of Document Exhibit No. 1 Complaint 38 2 Inquest panchnama 40 3 Panchnama of scene of offence 43 4 Janvajog entry report 46 5 Receipt 50 6 Discovery panchnama 51 7 Panchnama of clothes of accused 54 8 Receipt of seizure of clothes of accused 55 9 Handkerchief 56 10 Lungi 57 11 Receipt of clothes of deceased 60 12 'Jhabba' 61 13 Baniyan 62 14 Panchnama of seizure of clothes of deceased 63 15 P.M. Report 67 16 Depute order 69 17 Muddamal dispatch note 73 18 Analysis report 74 19 Ajan 75 20 FSL letter 76 21 Analysis report 77 22 Serological report 78 23 FSL letter 79 24 Analysis report 80 25 Serological report 81 26 Notification 82 27 Report of PSI 83 28 N.C. Complaint 84 2.3 At the end of the trial and after recording the further statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the trial court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the State has preferred the present appeal. 3. Ms. Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondent-accused. It was contended by Ms. Shah, that the judgment 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. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 3.1 Ms. Shah has mainly relied upon two witnesses mainly P.W. 6 and 7. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical evidence and submitted that it is proved that the cause of death was due to shock to vital part. 4. Mr. Saiyed, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Mr. Saiyed, learned advocate appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that in fact the trial court erred in not believing the School Leaving Certificate which was produced at Ex. 33 which clearly states the age of the accused and the fact that the accused was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. 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 v. State of Kerala and 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 v. 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. (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. (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 v. Sanjay Thakran and 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 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.” 5.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh and Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. 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 In the case of Luna Ram v. 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 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 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 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 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 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 file d 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 ]” 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 reasonigns, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]” 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 reasonigns, 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 Chaudhary, ( 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 appreciated, re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6.1 We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence on record. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. It is borne out that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain in the present case. The last seen together evidence has not been believed by the trial court. Merely on the basis of evidence of P.W. 6 and 7 it will not be proper to convict the accused when the same has not been corroborated by any independent witness or any other evidence. None of the witnesses have seen the accused and deceased together on the day of incident. The case of the prosecution seems to be based on assumptions and surmises. The FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. The trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The case of the prosecution seems to be based on assumptions and surmises. The FSL report also does not support the case of the prosecution. The trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent as the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Further, learned APP 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 above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. 8. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charge levelled against him 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. No interference is warranted with the judgment and order of the trial Court. 9. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 16.08.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 6, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2003 is confirmed qua the acquittal of the respondent. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. R and P, if lying with this court, to be sent back forthwith. Appeal dismissed.