JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. All these appeals are directed against the judgments and orders of acquittal dated 3.6.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case Nos. 3 and 4 of 2008, whereby the original accused of Sessions Case No. 3 of 2008 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 307, 325, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, whereas the accused of Sessions Case No. 4 of 2008 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under: 2.1 So far as Sessions Case No. 3 of 2008, as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant is the cousin of the injured victim. Land dispute was going on regarding the passage in the field of the two families i.e. the family of cousin of the complainant and the accused. Pursuant to which, as the accused side had taken undue advantage by occupying some of the land, the dispute had aggravated since last five months. On the day of the incident, when the victim was passing through the room at which the complainant was present, all the accused attacked the victim with pipe, axe, dhariya, kodali by abusing him. Accused No. 1 was instigating the rest of the accused to kill the victim. Saying so all the accused started beating the victim. As the victim started shouting, people from nearby came over there and then rescued the victim. The accused then went away from there. Even at the time of leaving the place of incident, the accused Daudkha Ismailkha Belim threatened to kill the victim. As the victim was unconscious and profusely bleeding, he was taken in bullock cart to Jariyavada Village and from there in rickshaw to Mangrol Village. During that journey to Mangrol, at Village-Loyej ambulance came over and hence the victim was carried in the ambulance to Mangrol Hospital, where primary treatment was given and then victim was referred to Junagadh for further treatment. Complaint was lodged at Junagadh Hospital by the complainant against the accused with Sheel Police Station, which was registered as I-CR No. 39/2007. During that journey to Mangrol, at Village-Loyej ambulance came over and hence the victim was carried in the ambulance to Mangrol Hospital, where primary treatment was given and then victim was referred to Junagadh for further treatment. Complaint was lodged at Junagadh Hospital by the complainant against the accused with Sheel Police Station, which was registered as I-CR No. 39/2007. In connection with the same incident, cross-complaint was filed by the other side, which was registered as I-C.R. No. 3072/2007, which was ultimately tried as Sessions Case No. 4 of 2008. 2.2 On complaint being filed, investigation was carried out and the accused came to be arrested. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the Magistrate Court. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court and, ultimately, trial was initiated and charge came to be framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.3 In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2008, prosecution has examined following witnesses. Sr. No. Name Exh. 1 Bhagirath Bhikhabhai Dodiya 16 2 Budhubhai Alibhai Chauhan 31 3 Habibkhan Umarkhan Belim 33 4 Yusufkhan Modh.khan Belim 35 5 Habibkhan Ismailkhan Belim 36 6 Mehbubbhai Hasanbhai 38 7 Husenkhan ismailkhan 39 8 Hardasbhai Lakhabhai 41 9 Dr. Kamuben Dahyalal Sagathiya 44 10 Dr. Jayeshbhai Alabhai Odedara 46 11 Tinaben Ugabhai Gohil 48 12 Sarvarkha Fatekha Belim 60 13 Sherkha Ibrahimkha Belim 63 14 Sarvarkha Kasamkhan 64 15 Hirabhai Merabhai Mucchal 94 16 Umarkha Fatekha Belim 113 17 Alikha Ibrahimkha Belim 114 18 Habibkha Husenkha Belim 118 19 Amankha Fatekha Belim 124 20 Aalamkhan Alikhan Belim 126 21 Samatbhai Tejabhai Dayatar 128 22 Kalabhai Lakhabhai Vinzuda 135 23 Parsottambhai Galabhai Rathod 142 24 Amrutbhai Mohanbhai Desai 144 25 Vishwarajsinh Bhupendrasinh Jadeja 148 2.4 The prosecution has also produced following documents in support of its case:- Sr. No. Description Exh. 1 Injured Sherkhan’s Certificate given by Shifa Hospital. 17 2 Case papers of the injured. 18 3 Panchnama of the place. 32 4 Panchnama of physical condition of the injured. 34 5 Arrest panchnama of the accused. 37 6 Arrest panchnama of the accused. 40 7 Panchnama of collecting blood sample of the injured. 42 8 Certificate of the injured given by Civil Hospital, Junagadh. 17 2 Case papers of the injured. 18 3 Panchnama of the place. 32 4 Panchnama of physical condition of the injured. 34 5 Arrest panchnama of the accused. 37 6 Arrest panchnama of the accused. 40 7 Panchnama of collecting blood sample of the injured. 42 8 Certificate of the injured given by Civil Hospital, Junagadh. 45 9 Certificate of the injured given by Gokul 47 10 Certificate of the injured given by Junagadh Hospital. 49 11 Original complaint. 61 12 Copy of FIR. 129 13 Copy of extract of station diary. 132 14 Copy of complaint. 149 15 Yadi regarding the injuries received by the injured during scuffle. 150 16 Letter informing to record the DD. 151 17 Muddamal dispatch note. 152 18 Receipt of FSL. 153 19 Report of FSL. 154 20 Copy of the notification. 155 21 Serological report. 156 2.5 In order to bring home the charges against the accused persons in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2008, prosecution has examined following witnesses. Sr. No. Name Exh. 1 Dr. I.H. Gariba 11 2 Budhubhai Alibhai Chauhan 14 3 Hasambhai Daudbhai Belim 32 4 Rahemankha Daudkha Belim 34 5 Iqbal Daubhai Belim 35 6 Hirabhai Merabhai Mucchala 58 7 Husenkhan Alikha Belim 71 8 Keshvala Raja Jiva 72 9 Likayatbhai Abdul Karim 75 10 Habibkhan Ibrahimkhan 77 11 Ramjibhai Shamjibhai 83 12 Samantbhai Tejabhai 85 13 Kalabhai Lakhabhai Vinzuda 97 14 Amrutbhai Mohanbhai Desai 101 15 Vishwarajsinh Bhupendrasinh Jadeja 102 2.6 The prosecution has also produced following documents in support of its case:- Sr. No. Description Exh. 1 Injury certificate of Hasambhai Daudbhai. 12 2 Medical Case papers of Hasambhai Daudbhai. 13 3 Panchnama of the place. 15 4 Original complaint. 33 5 Arrest panchnama of the accused. 73 6 Muddamal Slip. 74 7 Arrest panchnama of accused no. 4. 76 8 Letter written by PSO. 84 9 True copy of the FIR. 86 10 Notification. 103 11 Letter written by PSO to PSI. 104 12 Copy of FIR. 105 7 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3. 104 12 Copy of FIR. 105 7 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded. The accused have denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3. At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge vide impugned Judgment, acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgments and orders of acquittal dated 3.6.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case Nos. 3 and 4 of 2008, all these three appeals have been preferred before this Court. 4. Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the State has taken us through the evidence and contended that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused inspite of voluminous evidence against them and contended that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused persons. She submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case through the evidence of witnesses. She also submitted that even the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and there was no reason to dis-believe their version. She submitted that merely because the weapons which the accused were possessing were used for agriculture purpose, it cannot be said that the accused were not holding that for the purpose of causing injury to the victim. She also submitted that motive was there as the land dispute was going on between the parties. She submitted that even the medical evidence is also not given due weightage by the learned trial Judge while passing impugned judgments. She submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in observing that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She, therefore, prays that Criminal Appeal Nos. 1042 and 1041 of 2015 may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments. 5. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2015 has almost adopted aforesaid submissions of learned APP and submitted that learned trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2008. 1042 and 1041 of 2015 may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments. 5. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2015 has almost adopted aforesaid submissions of learned APP and submitted that learned trial Judge has committed an error in acquitting the accused in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2008. He also submitted that the learned trial Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence of the witnesses coupled with medical evidence which had proved the fact that the injured witness had sustained severe and serious injuries which resulted into profuse bleeding and due to such injury he fainted and lost consciousness also. He submitted that there is enough proof on record to convict the accused and the trial Court has committed an error in acquitted them. Therefore, he prays to allow this appeal by reversing the impugned judgment. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons has contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. It is also submitted that so far as acquittal appeals are concerned, the law is well settled and by taking us through the impugned judgment, he submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal may be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned APP appearing for the appellant-State, Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate for appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2015 as well as learned advocate for the accused persons. We have also gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. From the material on record, it is clear that a civil dispute is tried to be converted into the criminal proceedings and the prosecution has failed to prove any case against any of the accused persons. It is found by the trial Court that there are discrepancies in the evidence and the theory of the prosecution with regard to the place of the incident. In cross-cases, the complainants have also stated different time as to when the incident had actually happened. It is rightly found by the trial Court that whole case seems to be got up. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. In cross-cases, the complainants have also stated different time as to when the incident had actually happened. It is rightly found by the trial Court that whole case seems to be got up. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. In view of this and considering various decisions of Honourable Apex Court, when two views are possible, this Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It is also 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 Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 , the Apex Court has narrated the powers of 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." 7.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (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. [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. 7.2 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. 7.3 Even in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Another, (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. 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." 7.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, 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. 7.5 In the case of Luna Ram Vs. Bhupat Singh and Ors, (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 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." 7.6 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, AIR 2013 SC 321 , the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under: "4. Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, 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 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 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 vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]" 7.7 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. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, 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." 8. Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. Moreover, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence on record so as to take a contrary view in the matter or to conclude 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 material evidence while acquitting the accused. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below in the impugned judgment and, therefore, find no reasons to entertain this appeal. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all these Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgments and orders dated 3.6.2015 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case Nos. 3 and 4 of 2008 are hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if lying here, to the concerned trial Court forthwith.