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 30/09/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2004, whereby the respondents herein - original accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 143, 323, 504, 506 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19/08/2003 at about 21:00 hours, 25 meters away from the Sanand Police Station, the respondents herein - original accused, in the aid and abetment of each other, in furtherance of their common intention to kill Natvarlal Vanmalidas Thakkar, the father of complainant - Ashish Natvarlal Thakkar due to quarrel took place regarding withdrawing betrothal of the complainant and the daughter of the accused No. 2 - Dixita, abused and attacked the deceased in which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and ultimately, succumbed to the injuries. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence against them, 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, Ahmedabad (Rural). 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 original accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and produced following documentary evidence, as under: Sr. Name Exh. ORAL EVIDENCE 1 Tushar Natvarlal Thakkar 14 2 Ashishkumar Natvarlal Thakkar 31 3 Dr. Kinnar Rameshbhai Patel 40 4 Dr. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 2.3 In order to bring home the charge against the original accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and produced following documentary evidence, as under: Sr. Name Exh. ORAL EVIDENCE 1 Tushar Natvarlal Thakkar 14 2 Ashishkumar Natvarlal Thakkar 31 3 Dr. Kinnar Rameshbhai Patel 40 4 Dr. Dharmesh Amrutsinh Shilajiya 44 5 Mukeshsinh Juvansinh Jhala 46 6 Dadubhai Himatsinh Chauhan 48 7 Naren drasinh Dolubha Sisodiya 50 8 Girishkumar Jasvantsinh Jhala 51 9 Mavubhai Udesinh Chauhan 52 10 Balvantsinh Jasvantsinh Chauhan 53 11 Dineshsinh Jilubha Jhala 55 12 Mahendrakumar Tribhovandas Vanand 56 13 Surendranath Umapatinath Pande 57 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1 Complaint 32 2 Panchnama of place of offence 49 3 Panchnama of place of offence 47 4 Inquest Panchnama 39 5 Certificate of cause of death of the deceased 42 6 PM Note of the deceased 41 7 Opinion of Dr. KR Patel, addressed to PSL, Sanand 43 8 Letter of FSL addressed to PI 45 2.4 The defence has also examined following witnesses and produced following documentary evidence, as under: Sr. Name Exh. ORAL EVIDENCE 1 Rameshchandra Naranbhai Barot 83 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1 True copy of Register of Deaths of the deceased 84 2 Death Certificate of the deceased 85 3 Police Yadi produced while registering the death of the deceased 86 2.5 At the end of the trial and after recording the Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against them by impugned judgment and order. 2.6 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State, ably assisted by learned advocate Mr. Shushil Shukla, Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned senior advocate assisted by learned advocates Mr. Shaunak Vyas and H.N. Joshi, with Mr. Nandish Thacker, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 6 and Mr. Girish B. Thaker, learned advocate for the respondent No. 4. 3.1 Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Shaunak Vyas and H.N. Joshi, with Mr. Nandish Thacker, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 6 and Mr. Girish B. Thaker, learned advocate for the respondent No. 4. 3.1 Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State, assisted by learned advocate Mr. Shushil Shukla, submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in releasing the respondents - 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 respondents. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that 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 has acquitted the respondents - accused. He took us to the deposition of PW-2 - Ashishkumar Natvarlal Thakkar, the Complainant and son of the deceased, who has narrated the incident completely that on 18/05/2003, his engagement was solemnized with Dixita, the daughter of the accused No. 2, however, thereafter, the accused were harping on breaking the engagement and hence, this witness and the daughter of the accused No. 2 got the registered marriage done. However, on 19/08/2003 on complaint being made by the accused before the Sanand Police Police Station, the deceased and this witness were called upon to the Police Station where the accused were already present and after talking with both the parties, since it was a social family problem, the police suggested to resolve the issue by talk and hence, they went outside the Police Station for talk, where, as per the say of this witness, the accused abused and attacked them, during which his father, the deceased, sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries and thereby, supported the case of the prosecution and submitted that this is a crucial and eye-witness to the incident in question and has also identified the accused in the Court. He, further took us to the evidence of PW-5 - Mukeshsinh Juvansinh Jhala, exh. 46, PW-8 - Girishkumar Jasvantsinh Jhala, exh. 51, PW-9 - Mavubhai Udesinh Chauhan, exh. 52, PW-10 - Balvantsinh Jasvantsinh Chauhan, exh. 53 and PW-11 - Dineshsinh Jilubha Jhala, exh. 55 and contended that though these witnesses and other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused and accordingly, he requested that this Court may interfere in the appeal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.M. Thakkar, learned senior advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. Thaker, learned advocate for the respondent No. 4, 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 respondents 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. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the version of the so-called eye-witness i.e. PW-2 - Ashishkumar Natvarlal Thakker, exh. 31, who is also a interested witness being the son of the deceased. Moreover, the other witnesses, upon which the prosecution has placed much reliance, are not the eye-witness to the incident and they have reiterated what the PW-2 -Ashishkumar Natvarlal Thakker has averred. Moreover, there are material suppression of facts by the prosecution. In the given circumstances, it is submitted that when the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, 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. 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 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 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 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. 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. [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 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. 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 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 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 Section302 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. We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it. On going through the evidence of the PW-2 - Ashishkumar Natvarlal Thakkar, exh. 31, the Complainant and son of the deceased, there appears material contradictions and improvements. He was cross-examined at length by the defence. In cross-examination, it was specifically put to him that whether the complaint was drafted by the lawyer and whether the complaint was lodged immediately after the incident had occurred, however, contradictory replies were given by him to the queries. Moreover, he refused to produce the complaint that was given to the DSP. Further, on going through the evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW-13 - Surendranath Umapatinath Pande, exh. 57, in his cross-examination, it is specifically stated and admitted by him that, 'the complainant has, in his statement before me, had not mentioned that the accused - Jagdish Thakkar had attacked his father with scissor on his nape on back. Further, on going through the evidence of the Investigating Officer, PW-13 - Surendranath Umapatinath Pande, exh. 57, in his cross-examination, it is specifically stated and admitted by him that, 'the complainant has, in his statement before me, had not mentioned that the accused - Jagdish Thakkar had attacked his father with scissor on his nape on back. It is true that this witness, in his statement before me, has not mentioned that due to felling down, severe injuries were sustained on head and the deceased was struggling and hence, the police personnel shifted him to the hospital in the police jeep and since, at that time Jagmalsing also reached there, he was also accompanied to the hospital'. He has also stated in his cross-examination that, 'this witness had stated him that, 'since somebody had pushed his father, his father fell down and sustained injuries on his head and hence, he died at about 9:00 o'clock in Jivraj Mehta Hospital'. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also sought to rely upon certain other witnesses, who are police witnesses, who have reiterated what the complainant has stated and hence, we deem it proper not to discuss them at length. The only eye-witness to the incident in question, is the complainant, however, there appears material contradictions and improvements in his version as on perusing the complaint registered on 19/08/2003, exh. 34, the complainant has specifically stated that when they were out side the Police Station, the accused abused them and on hearing the shouts, the police people asked them to return and while returning, his father fell down due to dizziness and he was shifted immediately to the hospital in police jeep by me together with Jagmalsing and Police Constable - Dineshsinh. Moreover, on perusing the medical evidence of Dr. Kinnar Rameshbhai Patel, exh. 40 and Dr. Dharmesh Amrutsinh Shilajiya, exh. 44, it appears that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible due to high blood pressure also. Thus, on going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge appears just and proper. Kinnar Rameshbhai Patel, exh. 40 and Dr. Dharmesh Amrutsinh Shilajiya, exh. 44, it appears that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible due to high blood pressure also. Thus, on going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge appears just and proper. 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 them 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 30/09/2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2004 is confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if any, to the trial Court forthwith.