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 29.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2005 whereby the accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 03.11.2004 at about 02.30 pm the complainant and his wife were present in the temple of Kopkhandeshwar Mahadev situated in the sim of village. At that time two persons came to the temple and requested for water. It is the case of the prosecution that they were given water. Both the persons requested for tea and they were given black tea. It is the case of the prosecution that while the complainant was cleaning the temple, one of the persons who came there inflicted iron pipe blow on the head of the complainant. The complainant fell down and on hearing the shouts of the complainant, his wife Kadviben came to his rescue. It is the case of the prosecution that both the persons inflicted iron pipe blows on her also and tied her hand with the hands of the complainant with her saree. Thereafter, they took out Rs.215/- from the pocket of complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that they also snatched away the nose ring of the wife of the complainant and fled away from the scene of offence. Thereafter, the complainant and his wife were admitted in the hospital by the village people. A complaint was therefore lodged by the complainant. 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 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 Dr. Pramdokumar Saxena 10 2 Rashid Allarakha 16 3 Rajubhai Nanjibhai 17 4 Dahyabhai Nanjibhai 18 5 Kadviben Dahyabhai 19 6 Kanjibhai Shamjibhai 20 7 Laljibhai Juthabhai 21 8 Hiteshbhai Bhatt 23 9 Madhavjibhai Pethabhai 25 10 Dr. Pramdokumar Saxena 10 2 Rashid Allarakha 16 3 Rajubhai Nanjibhai 17 4 Dahyabhai Nanjibhai 18 5 Kadviben Dahyabhai 19 6 Kanjibhai Shamjibhai 20 7 Laljibhai Juthabhai 21 8 Hiteshbhai Bhatt 23 9 Madhavjibhai Pethabhai 25 10 Dr. Rakhalchandra Dutta 26 11 Mulubha Kalyanji 32 12 Rajabhai Mansibhai 33 13 Girishkumar Malvi 34 14 Jaykumar Pandya 39 15 Digvijaysinh Chandubha 40 16 Himanshu Doshi 45 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 Yadi 11 2 Permission form 12 & 13 3 Case papers of complainant and injured witness 14 & 15 4 Copy of prohibition notification 24 5 Treatment certificate of complainant 27 6 Case papers of complainant 28 7 Police yadi 29 8 Treatment certificate of Kadviben 30 9 Medical certificate of Kadviben 31 10 Panchnama of identification parade 35 11 Police yadi 36 12 Yadi 37 13 Yadi 38 14 Original complaint 41 15 Report 42 16 True copy of station diary 43 17 Panchnama of local place 46 18 Panchnama of body condition of accused 47 19 Panchnama of scene of offence shown by accused 48 20 Yadi 49 21 Information letter 50 22 Dispatch letter 51 23 Copy of certificate of jurisdiction 52 24 FSL receipt 53 25 Serological report 54 26 Yadi for dog squad 55 27 Form for dog squad 56 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 learned Additional Sessions Judge 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. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in releasing the respondents-accused. It was contended by Mr. Pujari 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 respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 3.1 Mr. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 3.1 Mr. Pujari has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of the complainant and his wife Kadviben who was also injured in the alleged offence and contended that in view of the identification parade, the accused was identified and his role is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that in view of the report of P.W. 16 who at the relevant time was the PSO and has reported at the scene of incident with the help of dog squad, it is the clear that the respondent is guilty of the crime in question. 4. Mr. Pratik Barot, 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. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 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 & 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. [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 & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , 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. 5.3 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , 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 & 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 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 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. 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 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 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. We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence on record. It is borne out from the records that the identification parade was not carried out as per the procedure prescribed under the law. The prosecution has not found the alleged stick from the scene of offence as per the demonstration panchnama. No blood stains were found from the alleged muddamal stick. Moreover, the iron rod was also not seized by the prosecution. We find that the trial court has rightly and elaborately discussed the evidence in paras 25 to 27 which does not call for interference by this Court. 7. No blood stains were found from the alleged muddamal stick. Moreover, the iron rod was also not seized by the prosecution. We find that the trial court has rightly and elaborately discussed the evidence in paras 25 to 27 which does not call for interference by this Court. 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 29.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2005 is confirmed qua the acquittal of the respondents. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. R & P, if lying with this court, to be sent back forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.