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 13/10/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharuch, camp: Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2006, whereby the respondent herein - original accused has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Section135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24/03/2002 at about 00:30 hours at: Hirabapa's Dairy, the respondent herein - original accused and other two persons, assaulted the deceased. The respondent - accused gave knife blow to the deceased on his chest and abdomen and thereby, caused severe injuries. The deceased, ultimately, succumbed to the injuries and thereby, the accused committed the alleged offence for which, a complaint came to be lodged. 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, Bharuch, camp: Ankleshwar. 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 respondent - original accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and produced following documentary evidence, as under: Sr. Name Exh. ORAL EVIDENCE 1 PW-1 Rakeshkumar Bapulal Modi 11 2 PW-2 Jesingbhai Khetiyabhai Chaubhary 13 3 PW-3 Surendra Prasad Shastri, DySP 15 4 PW-4 Idrishbhai Suleman Patel 16 5 PW-5 Afzalbhai Daudbhai 17 6 PW-6 Suleman Mohammad Uniya 18 7 PW-7 Yakub Mohammad Hatiya 19 8 PW-8 Basirbhai Ibrahimbhai Malek 20 9 PW-9 Dr. Name Exh. ORAL EVIDENCE 1 PW-1 Rakeshkumar Bapulal Modi 11 2 PW-2 Jesingbhai Khetiyabhai Chaubhary 13 3 PW-3 Surendra Prasad Shastri, DySP 15 4 PW-4 Idrishbhai Suleman Patel 16 5 PW-5 Afzalbhai Daudbhai 17 6 PW-6 Suleman Mohammad Uniya 18 7 PW-7 Yakub Mohammad Hatiya 19 8 PW-8 Basirbhai Ibrahimbhai Malek 20 9 PW-9 Dr. Vijaychandra Lallubhai Patel 24 10 PW-10 Dadubhai Kanjibhai, PSO 30 11 PW-11 Alkesh Jayantilal Modi 34 12 PW-12 Vasantbhai Hathibhai Patel 35 13 PW-13 Bharatkumar Chimanlal Solanki 61 14 PW-14 Nareshbhai Ambalal Muniya 66 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1 Notification prohibiting use of weapons 12 2 Map of place of offence 14 3 Panchnama of place of offence 21 4 Yadi to MO, Bharuch 25 5 PM Note 26 6 Inquest Panchnama 29 7 Original complaint 31 8 Order to PSO 32 9 Station Diary 33 10 Letter by DSP, Bharuch to FSL, Gandhinagar 36 11 Letter by FSL, Gandhinagar to PI, Ankleshwar, Police Station 37 12 Consent letter 38 13 Facts given by the accused in his hand writing 39 14 Questions asked to the accused during test 40 15 Polygraph recording 41 16 Return of Polygraph Analysis 42 17 Questions asked in affirmative technique test 43 18 Return as to Phonographic Test 44 19 Return of Polygraph Analysis 45 20 Yadi of FSL, Gandhinagar as to analysis done 46 21 Report of Lie Detection Test 47 22 Letter of DSP, Bharuch to FSL, Gandhinagar asking for appointment 48 23 Consent letter of the accused 49 24 Report of prob made to hear the accused 50 25 Written Statement of the accused 51 26 Report of Brain Finger Printing of the accused 52 & 53 27 Categorical Interpretation Report 54 28 Despatch Note with certificate as to jurisdiction 62 29 Yadi as to additional of Section 302 IPC 63 30 DD of deceased 64 31 True copy of Summary Report u/s. 173 CrPC 65 32 Letter of DySP to Civil Surgeon 67 33 Original vardhi for keeping presence of the witnesses 68 34 Receipt of muddamal 69 35 Yadi as to Narco Test to be done of accused 70 36 Yadi permission for Narco Test to be done of accused 71 37 Yadi as to Narco Analysis and Brain Finger Test to be done of accused 72 38 Copy of fax message 73 39 Copy of Special Report 74 40 Vardhi as to death of the deceased 75 41 Closing pursis 76 2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the Further Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent 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. Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State has submitted that the trial Court committed an error in releasing the respondent - accused. It was contended by Mr. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 offence against the present respondent. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence, more particularly, the Brain Finger Printing Report of the accused, exhs. 53 and 53 and submitted that from the same, the involvement of the accused is clearly established and accordingly, though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in clear terms, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent - accused, which being contrary to law and the evidence on record, he requested to interfere in the appeal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Raval, learned advocate 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 and the learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has come to such a conclusion, which is just and proper and has rightly acquitted the accused and accordingly, it is requested that this Court should not interfere in 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 judgement 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, 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. [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 judgement 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 judgement 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. Taking into consideration the fact that the case on hand is based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has not proved the complete chain of evidence and only on the afore-stated Report of Brain Finger Printing only, which reflects that, 'Responses to probes support that on the night of offence when the Gandhidham Express arrived he boarded Moulvi in his rickshaw. It is indicated that Mohd. Naim thought and planned to kill Subbarav and did arrangement for the murder. They silently went to Hirabapa's deri. Mohd. Naim had a knife and he took out the knife from his pocket, which he held in his hand. Responses also indicate that he stabbed Subbarav in his chest and stomach. His friends stabbed Subbarav. They ran away to rickshaw. Then Mohd. Naim dropped his friends and returned back to his home. Moreover responses also indicate that Mohd. Naim along with hired persons went near Subbarav. One of the hired person closed the mouth of Subbarav and stabbed in his chest and stomach. They ran away and sat in the rickshaw. Mohd. Naim murdered Subbarav because he wanted to take revenge', it is difficult for this Court to reverse the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, we find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it. They ran away and sat in the rickshaw. Mohd. Naim murdered Subbarav because he wanted to take revenge', it is difficult for this Court to reverse the impugned judgment and order. Moreover, we find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it. 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 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 13/10/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Bharuch, camp: Ankleshwar in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2006 is confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if any, to the trial Court forthwith.