JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. These appeals were originally filed by and against the original accused nos. 1 & 2 but during the pendency of these appeals original accused no. 1- Babubhai Nathubhai Patel had expired. Therefore, vide order dated 29.07.2015, this Court had disposed of the appeals qua original accused no. 1 having been abated. We have therefore heard these appeals qua the surviving accused person - original accused no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') who has been found guilty of commission of offence under Section 304 (Part II), 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years and has been imposed fine of Rs.500/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 304 (Part II) and rigorous imprisonment for three months and has been imposed fine of Rs.50/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for five days by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari vide judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1990. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The accused, however, has been acquitted for offence under Sections 302 & 504 of Indian Penal Code. 1.1 Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1993 has been preferred by the original accused against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1993 has been preferred by the State against the said judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 whereby the accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under sections 302 & 504 of Indian Penal Code. Whereas Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 1993 has also been preferred by the State against the said judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed under sections 304(Part II) and 323 r/w 114 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Chanchalben - the sister of complainant Chandubhai was married to one Ghelabhai. On 05.01.1990, at about 05.00 pm when Surekhaben - the daughter of Chanchalben went to graze cattle and when one goat entered the field of accused nos. 1 & 2 who are brothers of Ghelabhai (paternal uncles of Surekhaben), Surekhaben and her brother Vinodbhai went to Chanchalben and complainant Chandubhai to inform about the same. On 05.01.1990, at about 05.00 pm when Surekhaben - the daughter of Chanchalben went to graze cattle and when one goat entered the field of accused nos. 1 & 2 who are brothers of Ghelabhai (paternal uncles of Surekhaben), Surekhaben and her brother Vinodbhai went to Chanchalben and complainant Chandubhai to inform about the same. When these people went to the field of the accused for taking their goat, the accused persons attacked Chanchalben, Ratilal Devjibhai, Kailasben and Vinodbhai with sticks and also abused them. Thereafter, at around 08.00 pm when the complainant Chandubhai went to drop his sister at Amadhara village where the accused persons were present, complainant inquired as to why they attacked the injured person. The accused persons got excited and gave blows with wooden planks to the complainant, his father and brother Ratilal on head, legs and other parts of the body. 2.1 The complainant therefore went to Chikhli police station and lodged a complaint which was registered as N.C. Complaint No. 4 of 1990. Devjibhai - father of the complainant expired the next day and therefore offence was registered under sections 302, 323 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to the complaint and death of deceased, inquest panchnama was drawn and investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. 2.2 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses: P.W. No. Name of Witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. D.B. Bhagat 12 2 Hasmukh Samji 18 3 Narsinh Nanabhai 22 4 Chandubhai Devjibhai-complainant 24 5 Dr. M. J. Patel 28 6 Ishwarbhai Maganbhai 30 7 Rameshbhai Somabhai 32 8 Dr. S.R. Pundalik 34 9 Kailashben Ghelabhai 42 10 Surekhaben Ghelabhai 43 11 Vinodbhai Ghelabhai 44 12 Ratilal Dajibhai Patel 45 13 Govindbhai Vallabhbhai 48 14 Ratilal Devjibhai 53 15 Chanchalben Ghelabhai 54 16 PSI J.C. Raolji 57 2.3 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us: Sr. S.R. Pundalik 34 9 Kailashben Ghelabhai 42 10 Surekhaben Ghelabhai 43 11 Vinodbhai Ghelabhai 44 12 Ratilal Dajibhai Patel 45 13 Govindbhai Vallabhbhai 48 14 Ratilal Devjibhai 53 15 Chanchalben Ghelabhai 54 16 PSI J.C. Raolji 57 2.3 The prosecution also relied upon the following documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us: Sr. No. Name of Document Exhibit No. 1 Inquest Panchnama 6 2 Panchnama 7 3 Panchnama 8 4 Panchnama 9 5 Panchnama 10 6 Panchnama 11 7 Medical certificate 13 8 Medical certificate 14 9 Post mortem notes 15 10 Medical certificate 17 11 Map 19 12 Panchnama 23 13 Copy of N.C. Complaint 26 14 Complaint 27 15 Medical certificate 29 16 Panchnama 31 17 Medical certificate 35 18 Medical certificate 36 19 Medical certificate 37 20 Panchnama 46 21 Panchnama 47 22 FSL report 59 2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the further statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and acquitted the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant as well as the State have preferred the present appeals. 3. Mr. Sunil C Patel, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Pravin Panchal, learned advocate for the appellant - original accused submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant - original accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the trial court has erred in holding that the case against the appellant - original accused is proved for the offence under section 304(Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of witnesses namely Kailashben, Surekhaben and Chandubhai. He submitted that the trial court ought to have appreciated that the appellant - original accused had also sustained injuries because of the assault from the complainant and his family members. 4. On the other hand, Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in acquitting the accused under sections 302 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. It was contended by Mr. 4. On the other hand, Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in acquitting the accused under sections 302 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. 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 respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 4.1 Mr. Pujari has drawn the attention of this Court to the medical evidence and submitted that the same corroborate the oral evidence of the witnesses. He submitted that the order of sentence is unduly lenient and inadequate looking to the seriousness of the offence committed by the accused. He submitted the complainant Chandubhai was given blows on head which has been proved by the evidence of Dr. Sanjay Pundalik. He submitted that the death of Devjibhai Hirjibhai was due to the injuries caused on the head and forehead which could also be proved from the post mortem report. 4.2 Mr. Pujari submitted that the trial court ought to have seen that the intention of the accused was very clear from the fact that the weapon used was a wooden plank which was hit on the head of the deceased who was an aged person. He submitted that therefore the inference which could be drawn is that the offence falls under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He submitted that even if the offence is considered to be under section 304 (Part II) of Indian Penal Code, at least maximum sentence ought to have been inflicted on the accused under section 304 (Part II) of Indian Penal Code. 5. P.W. 4-Chandubhai Devjibhai who is the complainant has stated that on the date of incident while Surekhaben had gone to graze goats and while she was returning with her goats, the accused no. 2 had assaulted her. He has further stated that when Chanchalben went to the accused and inquired as to why they had beaten Surekhaben, they started assaulting her also. He has stated that the accused persons had beaten Kailashben and Vinod also. 2 had assaulted her. He has further stated that when Chanchalben went to the accused and inquired as to why they had beaten Surekhaben, they started assaulting her also. He has stated that the accused persons had beaten Kailashben and Vinod also. He has stated that Kailashben and Saileshbhai both complained to the complainant that the accused persons were assaulting them and therefore when the complainant, his father and his brother went to the accused persons, they were also assaulted by the accused. 5.1 P.W. 9-Kailashben Ghelabhai, Ex. 42 and P.W. 10-Surekhaben, Ex. 43 have also stated that the deceased and injured were assaulted by the accused as a goat had gone astray into their field. Considering the evidence of the complainant - Chandubhai coupled with the evidence of other two injured eye witnesses Kailashben and Surekhaben we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 5.2 P.W. 1 - Dr. D.D. Bhagat is the medical officer who conducted post mortem on the deceased. She has mentioned the cause of death to be depressed fracture of right temporal + parietal bones with brain injury. This witness has stated that the following injuries were found on the body of the deceased : "(1) Zigzag wound with irregular margin over the right parito occipital region 5 cm x 2 cm (2) Abrasion 7 cm x 1 cm over the lateral aspect of the forearm 5 cm proximal to wrist joint. (3) Zigzag wound on tip of the nose" 5.3 P.W. 1, in her evidence has stated that P.W. 11 - Shri Vinodbhai Ghelabhai had come on 06.01.1990 at around 02.00 pm to the Community Health Centre, Chikhli, Valsad in an injured state and gave history that he was assaulted by someone at about 06.00 pm on 05.01.1990. She has stated the injuries to be as under: "Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on forehead left side Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on face lateral to right eye" 5.4 P.W. 1 has further stated that P.W. 15-Smt. Chanchalben Ghelabhai had also come to the Community Health Centre with injuries. The injuries sustained by P.W. 15 is stated to be as under: "Wound on forehead covered with dry tea and sugar. The injuries sustained by P.W. 15 is stated to be as under: "Wound on forehead covered with dry tea and sugar. CLW on forehead on right side 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep Injury is not fresh Dressing done" 5.5 P.W. 1 has stated that the injuries sustained by the injured are likely to be caused by heavy blunt object like lathi. The medical evidence corroborate the ocular evidence and the documentary evidence in the form of panchnama, map of scene of offence and FSL reports. 5.6 Moreover, taking a look at Ex. 61 which is the cross complaint filed by the original accused no. 1 who has now expired it is borne out that the medical evidence corroborates the say of the witnesses. It has neither been disputed before this Court or before the trial court that both the sides were involved in the alleged assault. We are of the view that the trial court is justified in convicting the accused for the charges levelled against them. The sentence imposed upon the accused is also just and proper and does not call for any interference by this court. 6. As far as the acquittal of the accused under sections 302 & 504 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, 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, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [4] An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. 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 755 , the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under: "16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. 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 levelled 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 levelled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasised that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyse the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal file d against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and aligned 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 ]" 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 reasonigns, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. [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 reasonigns, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: "This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi v. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." 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. As a result of hearing and perusal of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant under section 304 (Part II) of Indian Penal Code is justified. No case for conviction of the appellant under section 302 & 504 of Indian Penal Code has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or to show that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1993 filed against the conviction and sentence qua original accused is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1990 qua conviction and sentence of the original accused is confirmed. 8. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 509 of 1993 filed against the conviction and sentence qua original accused is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1990 qua conviction and sentence of the original accused is confirmed. If the accused are on bail they shall surrender before the authorities within a period of six weeks from today to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 723 of 1993 filed for enhancement of sentence is also dismissed. Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1993 preferred against the order of acquittal is also dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 31.03.1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Sessions Case No. 39 of 1990 is confirmed. R & P to be sent back forthwith. Direct service is permitted. Appeal Nos. 509, 723, 709 of 93 dismissed.