Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 816 (GUJ)

Alpeshbhai v. State of Gujarat

2015-08-21

G.B.SHAH, K.S.JHAVERI

body2015
Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. These Criminal Appeals have been directed against the judgment and order dated 07/07/2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Jamnagar in Sessions Case No. 89 of 2006 whereby, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the accused Nos. 6 and 7 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for brevity) and awarded life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default, further simple imprisonment for 03 years for the offence punishable under Sections 302and 34 of the IPC and 07 (seven) years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default, further simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 34 of the IPC and acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 395, 396, 397, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the IPC; the accused No. 5 was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 412 of the IPC and accused Nos. 6 and 7 were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2282 of 2008 and 2731 of 2008 have been filed by the appellants - original accused Nos. 6 and 7 respectively, against conviction whereas, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2893 of 2008 and 2894 of 2008 have been filed by the State respectively against acquittal and for enhancement of sentence awarded against the original accused Nos. 6 and 7. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 24/04/2006 in the midnight at Udyognagar in Jamnagar deceased - Ramesh Bahadur Gurkha was serving as watchman in a factory known as Yogi Cast (Foundry), at that time, the accused Nos. 1 to 4, in abetment of accused Nos. 6 and 7, with a view to commit robbery, entered into the premises and on being challenged by the deceased, they assaulted the deceased with Gupti and caused multiple injuries and looted 600 kg. Brass and though, it was allegedly known to accused No. 5 that the muddamal article was obtained by way theft, he purchased the same and thereby, the accused persons committed the offence charged against them and for the said alleged offence, complaint came to be lodged against them. Brass and though, it was allegedly known to accused No. 5 that the muddamal article was obtained by way theft, he purchased the same and thereby, the accused persons committed the offence charged against them and for the said alleged offence, complaint came to be lodged against them. 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, Jamnagar. 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 accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 40 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ('the Code' for brevity) and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 5 of the charges levelled against them whereas, convicted accused Nos. 6 and 7 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC as well as under Sections 201 and 34 of the IPC, as aforesaid, 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 as well as the accused Nos. 6 and 7 have preferred the present appeals. 3. Mr. Barot, the learned advocate for the appellants - original accused Nos. 6 and 7 submitted that the case is based on the circumstantial evidence and except discovery of clothes and weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and blood stains found on the clothes of the accused and mobile details and history before the doctor by the accused No. 6, there is nothing on record to show that the accused were involved in the crime in question. He took us mainly to the evidence of following witnesses: P.W. No. Name Exh. 7 Jagdishsinh Udesinh Jadeja 30 8 Vijay Meghjibhai Bhanderi 35 9 Jivanbhai Gandubhai 36 12 Dr. Pruthvirajsinh Chandrasinh Vaghela 39 13 Ratilal Ramjibhai Rank 42 16 Mahesh Bhikhabhai 48 17 Rameshbhai Gandubhai Bhanderi 60 18 Dr. He took us mainly to the evidence of following witnesses: P.W. No. Name Exh. 7 Jagdishsinh Udesinh Jadeja 30 8 Vijay Meghjibhai Bhanderi 35 9 Jivanbhai Gandubhai 36 12 Dr. Pruthvirajsinh Chandrasinh Vaghela 39 13 Ratilal Ramjibhai Rank 42 16 Mahesh Bhikhabhai 48 17 Rameshbhai Gandubhai Bhanderi 60 18 Dr. Jentilal Rugnath Popat 72 21 Ashishbhai Premnarayan Khare 78 22 Abhinav Kulshreshtha 84 25 Kaushikbhai Banesing Makwana 92 26 Kanjibhai Virjibhai Makwana 94 30 Sarpbahadur Pahrebahadur Gurkha 103 31 Dr. Pritiben Premchandbhai Vora 108 32 Bhudharbhai Thobhanbhai Savsani 115 33 Lakhmanbhai Kanabhai 119 34 Aminbhai Abdulraheman 120 35 Mahavirsinh Navalsinh Sarvaiya 147 36 Bhupatbhai Govindbhai Chavda 151 37 Dr. Pritiben Premhandbhai Vora 156 38 Vikramsinh Dashrathsinh Gohil 164 39 Devshibhai Amarshibhai Vaghela 222 40 Kishorbhai Kantibhai Mehta 230 3.1 Mr. Barot, the learned advocate for the appellants - original accused Nos. 6 and 7 further submitted that the case is based on the circumstantial evidence as stated above and therefore, conviction of life for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC was unwarranted and is required to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Ms. Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, took us to the evidence on record and contended that in view of the Panchnama and more particularly, the evidence of P.W. Nos. 7, 8, 9, 13 and 17, it is clear that the conduct of accused No. 7 - Mahesh immediately on the dead-body being found in the premises and P.W. No. 16, who found the dead-body in the factory premises in the morning and shouted at that time, the accused No. 7 was present and vomited and ran away from the factory speaks a volume. Apart from that, she further contended that the articles which were seized being muddamal article Nos. A to I clearly show that all the accused ought to have been convicted. She took us to the judgment and order of the trial Court where the trial Court, after discussing the evidence of each of the witnesses and the documentary evidence, has completely described the evidence and circumstances, which are against the accused Nos. 6 and 7 and accordingly, convicted them, whereas, wrongly acquitted the other accused by giving benefit of doubt though there was ample evidence available on record against them also. 5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6 and 7 and accordingly, convicted them, whereas, wrongly acquitted the other accused by giving benefit of doubt though there was ample evidence available on record against them also. 5. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 5.1 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 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." 5.2 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, reappreciate 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. [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." 5.3 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. 5.4 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. 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." 5.5 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. 5.6 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." 5.7 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 reappreciate 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)]" 5.8 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." 5.9 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 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. Further, the learned advocates for the appellants in these appeals are 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. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court in passing the impugned judgment and order which is 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. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 2282 of 2008 and 2731 of 2008 filed by the appellants-original accused Nos. 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. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, the Criminal Appeal Nos. 2282 of 2008 and 2731 of 2008 filed by the appellants-original accused Nos. 6 and 7 respectively against conviction as well as Criminal Appeal No. 2893 of 2008 filed against acquittal and Criminal Appeal No. 2894 of 2008 filed for enhancement of sentence by the State, having found without any substance, fail and are dismissed. It is reported that the accused Nos. 6 and 7 are at large on bail and hence, they are directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority to undergo the sentence imposed upon them as aforesaid, within a period of 06 (six) weeks from today. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the record and proceedings to the trial Court forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD K.S. Jhaveri, G.B. Shah, JJ. State of Gujarat - Appellant Vs. Bhupatbhai and Ors. - Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 1282 of 1993 Decided On: 19.08.2015 Cases referred : Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124 Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589 State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 Mookiah and Anr. v. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2013 SC 321 Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors. reported in (2009) SCC 749 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75 Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006)6 SCC 39 Advocate Appeared : For the Appellant: L.R. Pujari, Addl. Public Prosecutor Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Mr. Chirag Parekh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents states that respondent No. 1 - Bhupatbhai alias Bhagat Tapubhai alias Jinabhai Bharwad has expired on 22.09.1999. The death certificate issued by Dr. N.H. Vasavada, Madhuram Hospital is also placed on record. Public Prosecutor Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Mr. Chirag Parekh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents states that respondent No. 1 - Bhupatbhai alias Bhagat Tapubhai alias Jinabhai Bharwad has expired on 22.09.1999. The death certificate issued by Dr. N.H. Vasavada, Madhuram Hospital is also placed on record. Therefore, this appeal stands disposed of as having been abated qua respondent No. 1 - Bhupatbhai alias Bhagat Tapubhai alias Jinabhai Bharwad. So far as the respondents No. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') are concerned, we have heard learned advocates for both the sides at length. 2. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order dated 21.05.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 115 of 1989 whereby the trial court acquitted the respondents under Sections 307, 324, 326 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 37(1) and 135 of B.P. Act. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1 had hired a matador vehicle of the witness Narendra @ Babo Maganlal Lohana who was the friend of the complainant Laxman Jiva for which the witness Laxman asked Rs. 600/- as rent which was not being paid by original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1. The original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1 had an altercation in this regard with witness Narendra. 3.1 Thereafter, on 22.06.1989, at night, when the complainant Laxman Jiva and witnesses Narendra @ Babo Maganlal Lohana, Dhiru Teja Patel and Dilip Mansur had come at Karanpara, situated opposite Mohan Studio on Prahlad Road to persuade original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1 to pay the money. At that time, original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1 along with other respondents assaulted the complainant and the witnesses. Original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1 inflicted knife blow on the chest of Laxman Jivabhai. Original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1 as well as original accused No. 3 - present respondent No. 3 inflicted scythe blow on the head of witness Narendra and original accused Nos. 2 & 4 - present respondents Nos. 2 & 4 inflicted knife blows on the chest and back of the witnesses Narendra and Dhirubhai Tejabhai respectively. Original accused No. 1 - present respondent No. 1 as well as original accused No. 3 - present respondent No. 3 inflicted scythe blow on the head of witness Narendra and original accused Nos. 2 & 4 - present respondents Nos. 2 & 4 inflicted knife blows on the chest and back of the witnesses Narendra and Dhirubhai Tejabhai respectively. 3.2 Therefore the police was informed and complaint was lodged. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, the accused persons were apprehended and charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions, Rajkot. 3.3 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. 3.4 The trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined following witnesses whose evidences have been read before us: P.W. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 3.4 The trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined following witnesses whose evidences have been read before us: P.W. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. Dhirajlal Valjibhai 8 2 Karunaji Arjanji 13 3 H.N. Chandani 16 4 Merambhai Shomrabhai 19 5 Laxmanbhai Jivabhai @ Babubhai 21 6 Sureshbhai Bhanjibhai 25 7 Laljibhai Nanjibhai 27 8 Narendra Laxmidas 28 9 Jaysukhbhai Chandulal 30 10 Dilipbhai Mansurbhai 31 11 Rajeshbhai Chhelshankar Bhatt 32 12 Vijaybhai Jadavji Parmar 33 13 Ayadanbhai Najbhai 35 14 Narendrabhai Maganbhai 36 15 Jayantibhai Parsotambhai 37 16 Dhirubhai 38 17 Laxmidas Thakarashi 39 18 Bahadursinh Nanbha 40 19 Anwarkhan Gafarkhan 42 20 Motibhai Veed Damor 47 21 Govindrao Dolatrao Gangvade 55 3.5 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us: S. No. Name of Document Exhibit No. 1 Injury certificate of Laxmanbhai Jivabhai 9 2 Injury certificate of Narendrabhai Maganlal 10 3 Injury certificate of Dhirubhai Tejabhai 11 4 Dying declaration of witness Dhirubhai Tejabhai 15 5 Dying declaration of witness Narendrabhai 18 6 Notification in respect of prohibition to keep arms 19 7 Panchnama of body condition of injured 22 8 Panchnama of rickshaw in which injured were taken 23 9 Pnachnama of body condition of witness 24 10 Panchnama of production of weapon 26 11 Panchnama of production of weapon 28 12 Panchnama of local place 34 13 Extract of chowky register 41 14 Entry in station diary 43 15 Muddamal receipt 16 Copy of letters by P.I, C division police station addressed to FSL 17 Copy of letter by P.I., C division police station addressed to Superintendent of City Survey 18 FSL report 19 Serological report 3.6 At the end of trial, after recording the further statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of the charges leveled against them by giving them benefit of doubt vide impugned judgment and order. 3.7 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal. 4. Mr. 3.7 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal. 4. 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. 4.1 Mr. Pujari has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that the evidences of the witnesses at the time of the incident and injured persons Laxmanbhai, Narendrabhai and Dilipbhai have got corroboration from the evidences of other witnesses. He submitted that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Mr. Chirag Parekh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents 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 respondents beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that no independent witness was examined. He submitted that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and the time of incident mentioned in the complaint does not corroborate the time mentioned in the dying declaration. 6. 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. 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." 6.1 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, reappreciate 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. 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." 6.2 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. 6.3 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 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." 6.4 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. 6.5 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." 6.6 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 leveled against them. 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 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 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 reappreciate 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 ]" 6.7 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 reasoning's, 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: "... 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 (1967)1 SCR 93 : (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." 6.8 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. 7. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have appreciated, reappreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7.1 We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the FSL report, Panchnama and the evidence on record. The medical evidence has been extensively dealt with by the learned trial judge. It is borne out that the sole eye witness, PW.. 15 - Jayantibhai Parsottam did not support the case of the prosecution and he was declared hostile. Even P.W. 17-Laxmidas Thakarshi who is the shop owner of Season Stores has not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore he has also been declared hostile. P.W. 8 - Jaysukhbhai Chandulal is the rickshaw driver who took the injured persons to Government hospital by his rickshaw. He has stated that he did not see any person beating the injured. No other independent witness was examined by the prosecution. Though there were many persons from the public who are said to have gathered at the time of incident, none of them was examined. Moreover, from the evidence on record, it is borne out that the complainant did not go to the hospital immediately after the incident but he first went to his house and later on he went to the hospital. Moreover, from the evidence on record, it is borne out that the complainant did not go to the hospital immediately after the incident but he first went to his house and later on he went to the hospital. Narendrabhai and Dhirubhai had not disclosed the name of the complainant in their dying declarations and had not lodged the complaint in respect of the incident before the complainant though they went to hospital earlier in point of time than the complainant. The time of incident as mentioned in the complaint and the dying declaration also do not match. 8. 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. 9. 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 by giving them benefit of doubt 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. 10. Accordingly, appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order dated 21.05.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 115 of 1989 is confirmed qua the acquittal of the respondents under sections 307, 324, 326 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code as well as under sections 37(1) and 135 of B.P. Act. Non-bailable warrant shall stand cancelled. Appeal Dismissed.