JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 21-10-1992 passed by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.64 of 1992 whereby the respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 31-8-1991 at about 10.30 p.m., in Deepnagar Chawl, Kathwada Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad, when some female residents were sitting in the lane, the accused No.1 had sat near those females, for the purpose of easing himself and therefore, he was scolded by females and then Vishnubhai. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 8 formed an unlawful assembly and with the common object to commit murder of Maniba and Vishnubhai, the accused Nos.1 and 2 armed with iron pipes and rest of the accused armed with sticks committed rioting causing injuries to Ayubbhai and fatal injuries to Maniba and Vishnubhai and both later succumbed to the injuries. A complaint was therefore filed by the complainant against the accused before Naroda Police Station being I.C.R.No.410 of 1991 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 149, 148, 302 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code and section 135(1) of Bombay Police Act. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined several witnesses including Ayubbhai Rasulbhai Mansuri at Exh.19, Dr.Atul Pravinbhai Kapadia at Exh.20, Laxmansinh Parbatsinh Solanki at Exh.24, Mahendrasinh Chhanubha at Exh.25; PSI-Subhashrao Parbatrao Sonavane at Exh.26, Vinubhai Magansinh Zala at Exh.27, Dr.Nayankumar Natvarlal Parikh at Exh.30, Deputy Mamlatdar-Mahesh Ramprasad Jani at Exh.34, PSI-Kapabhai A.Parmar at Exh.45 etc.. 2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined several witnesses including Ayubbhai Rasulbhai Mansuri at Exh.19, Dr.Atul Pravinbhai Kapadia at Exh.20, Laxmansinh Parbatsinh Solanki at Exh.24, Mahendrasinh Chhanubha at Exh.25; PSI-Subhashrao Parbatrao Sonavane at Exh.26, Vinubhai Magansinh Zala at Exh.27, Dr.Nayankumar Natvarlal Parikh at Exh.30, Deputy Mamlatdar-Mahesh Ramprasad Jani at Exh.34, PSI-Kapabhai A.Parmar at Exh.45 etc.. The prosecution has also relied on several documentary evidence such as statement of the deceased treated as dying declaration at Exh.52, panchnama of scene of incident at Exh.29, panchnama of search of persons at Exh.39, discovery panchnama whereby muddamal weapons were produced at Exh.42, inquest panchnama of the deceased Vishnubhai at Exh.16, inquest panchnama of the deceased Maniba at Exh.17, injury certificates at Exhs.21, 22 and 23, post mortem note of the deceased Maniba at Exh.31, post mortem note of the deceased Vishnubhai at Exh.32, FSL report at Exh.48, etc.. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, respondents accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, giving rise to this appeal. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned advocate, Ms.Sudha Gangwar for respondents-accused. 4. Learned APP, Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant, mainly took us through the evidence of P.W.No.1,Ayubbhai Rasulbhai Mansuri and P.W.No.6-Vinubhai Magansinh Zala, who rushed immediately to the place of incident and contended that Ayubbhai himself has been beaten by the accused on his head and hand and therefore, his evidence ought to have been relied upon and accused ought to have been convicted. She also took us through the panchnamas and dying declaration of the deceased and contended that it is a fit case where acquittal is required to be reversed in as much as FSL as well as panchnamas support the case of the prosecution. She also took us through the medical evidence and contended that injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. She further contended that the learned Judge has not appreciated the seriousness of the offences wherein two persons have lost their lives at the hands of the accused. She also took us through the medical evidence and contended that injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. She further contended that the learned Judge has not appreciated the seriousness of the offences wherein two persons have lost their lives at the hands of the accused. She further submitted that though almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in disbelieving their evidence and in acquitting the respondents-accused. 4.1 It was further contended that based on the evidence eye witnesses, it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence wherein presence of the accused with their active role along with deadly weapons has been proved at the place of incident beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and therefore, the chain of circumstances has been completed and hence also, acquittal is required to be reversed. 4.2 She relied upon the cases of Kuria and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court page 1085 and State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors. reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. Page 2162. 5. Learned advocate, Ms.Sudha Gangwar for the respondents-original accused, on the other hand, submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence appearing on record and the reasons assigned for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. According to her, there are glaring and major contradictions and material improvements without any satisfactory explanation in the depositions of prosecution witnesses and therefore, presence of the accused became doubtful in as much as part of the incident has taken place in the house and injuries were inflicted with iron pipes and sticks, however, it has come on record that there was no light. Therefore, on an appreciation of evidence, the respondents accused were rightly acquitted by the trial court. She further submitted that this being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. She ultimately urged to dismiss this appeal. 6. It is required to be noted that the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions. She ultimately urged to dismiss this appeal. 6. It is required to be noted that the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions. 6.1 In the case of Dilawar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015)1 SCC 737 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 36 and 37 as under: "36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record. 37. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: "42..(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." Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2012) 1 SCC 602 ." 6.2 In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007)3 SCC 755 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court In para 16 as under: "16. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2012) 1 SCC 602 ." 6.2 In the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007)3 SCC 755 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court In para 16 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. 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." 6.3 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors, reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 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 anke was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence." 6.4 Even in the case of Mookkiah 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. 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 appellant 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 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. 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 ]" 6.5 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka 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 Choudhary ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice." 6.6 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and Ors v. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 6.7 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then elaborate discussion of evidence or assigning fresh reasons are not necessary. 7. We have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 8. Two crucial witnesses examined by the prosecution are Ayubbhai Rasulbhai Mansuri and Vinubhai Magansinh Zala, who have reached to the place of incident at the earliest opportunity. It appears from the evidence of Ayubbhai that he has not named all the accused in the complaint but has broadly narrated the facts that the accused attacked with iron pipes or sticks. He also stated that one person was armed with iron pipe and others were with sticks. However, it has come on record that two accused were armed with iron pipes. He also stated that one person was armed with iron pipe and others were with sticks. However, it has come on record that two accused were armed with iron pipes. Another witness, Vinubhai Magansinh Zala, who is brother of the deceased-Vishnubhai and who rushed to the place of incident immediately has admitted in his cross-examination that he had no good terms with the deceased brother Vishnubhai. However, he has accompanied the deceased in the rickshaw to the Police Station and narrated the incident to the police. Taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence, it has been held by the trial court that prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It appears that the trial court, on an elaborate discussion of the entire oral and documentary evidence in true perspective, has arrived at the said finding and acquitted the accused. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it in the said findings and therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the same. In view of the above, as the facts of the decisions relied on by learned APP are different from the facts on hand, those decisions are not applicable in the present case. 9. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence to take a view contrary to the view taken by the trial court or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. 10. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 21-10-1992 passed by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.64 of 1992 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings shall be sent back forthwith to the trial court. Appeal dismissed.