JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 03/06/2006 recorded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Special Sessions (Atrocity) Case No. 12 of 2006 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(2)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is residing at Block No. 36/3, "CHH" Type, Sector-21, Gandhinagar and accused persons are residing above the house of the complainant. That Ashaben had thrown garbage which fell near the door of the complainant and therefore, younger sister of the complainant named Artiben told not to throw such garbage in their house. The accused persons got enraged and accused No. 1 Sureshsinh Natwarsinh Chavada who is younger brother-in-law of Ashaben came with pipe and inflicted blow on the head of Renukaben who is younger sister of the complainant. Said Sureshsinh had also caught hair of Renukaben and as the complainant intervened, he bite the complainant on left hand. This incident took place at about 9:00 a.m. and as neighbours gathered, the complainant ran away from the place of incident. Thereafter, the complainant took her sister Renukaben to the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar for treatment and a complaint was filed before Sector-21 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(2)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondents were arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered Special Atrocity Case No. 12 of 2006. The trial was initiated against the respondents. 3. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered Special Atrocity Case No. 12 of 2006. The trial was initiated against the respondents. 3. To prove the case against the present respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined about ten witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence. 4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgment and order dated 03/06/2006. 5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 6. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant-State. Though served, none appears for the respondents. 7. Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial 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 all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also contended by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondents for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(2)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. 8. 8. This Court has minutely perused the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as paper book and evidence adduced by the prosecution in its entirety and has also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. 9. Having heard learned APP for the appellant-State and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, it clearly reveals as per prosecution version that the complainant is residing in Block No. 36/3, "CHH" Type, Sector No. 21, Gandhinagar whereas respondents accused were residing on the first floor. On 03/10/2004, in the morning, there was a quarrel as regards to throwing of garbage and due to which the accused No. 1 assaulted by pipe, over the witness Renuka as well as assaulted the complainant and uttered words concerning their caste and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(2)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 10. P.W. - 1, complainant-Bhartiben who has been examined at Exh. 6, has deposed that the incident occurred in the morning for throwing garbage due to which respondent No. 1 assaulted with pipe and respondent No. 2 Shangarba had bite her as well as her sister Arti and they have taken treatment at the Civil Hospital and thereafter, complaint was lodged. She has deposed that she is belonging to Hindu vankar caste falling in the Scheduled Caste. In the cross examination, she has admitted that quarrel as regards to disbursal of garbage is subsisting for about long time. She has also admitted that she had lodged the complaint after consulting her parents and other family members. She has also admitted that in the complaint, she did not mention that accused Shangarba bite her as well as her sister. She has also admitted that she did not name respondent No. 2 in the FIR as the accused. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned anything in the complainant as regards to uttering derogative words concerning their caste by the respondents. She has also admitted that no further statement was recorded by the police. P.W. - 3, Artiben who is examined at Exh. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned anything in the complainant as regards to uttering derogative words concerning their caste by the respondents. She has also admitted that no further statement was recorded by the police. P.W. - 3, Artiben who is examined at Exh. 13 has deposed that on 03/10/2014, the incident occurred around at 9:00 a.m. Bhartiben and Renukaben are her younger sisters. She has deposed that in the incident, respondent No. 2-Shangarba caught hair of her sister Renukaben and also her hands and while rescuing herself, she gave bite over her hand. In her cross examination, she has narrated that she did not inform the police as regards to who has inflicted injury over her and her sister. She has also admitted that she has not narrated anything about uttering of derogative words concerning her caste. P.W. - 4, Renuka who is examined at Exh. 14 has also deposed in similar line to which her sister Arti had deposed. 11. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, admittedly on going through the complaint which is at Exh. 7, the complainant Bharti has named respondent No. 1-Suresh as he assaulted and inflicted injury by pipe as well as bite and the incident occurred because of throwing garbage. Nothing has been narrated in the said complaint as regards to uttering of any derogative words on part of the respondents concerning caste and community of the complainant. However, it reveals that during the course of trial as well as even in further statement of every witness that respondent No. 2 came to be implicated afterwards as name of respondent No. 2 was not mentioned in the FIR. Even as per say of injured witnesses over and above the complainant, initially they did not give name of respondent No. 1 in their police statement but in the further statement, they named respondent No. 2 Shangarba and after implicating her, entire role alleged to have been committed by respondent No. 1-Sureshsinh is also changed to respondent No. 2. Not only that, on going through the medical case papers also, none of the victim has narrated name of respondent No. 2. Witness Renuka and Arti even did not name anybody as regards to who implicated injury to them. Not only that, on going through the medical case papers also, none of the victim has narrated name of respondent No. 2. Witness Renuka and Arti even did not name anybody as regards to who implicated injury to them. Indisputably, on overall appreciation of the evidence on record, it is clearly indicative that there is wrong implication of respondent No. 2 with the crime which was not described in the complaint. Even while recording police statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, initially, name of respondent No. 2 was not narrated, however, she has been wrongly implicated in the further statement. Her role is also contrary to the fact mentioned in the complaint itself. Medical evidence is also not getting corroboration so far as the oral evidence given by the complainant as well as aforesaid two victims. 12. For the reasons recorded as above, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against them which calls for no interference by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. This Court find that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. 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. Accordingly, present appeal is devoid of any merits and requires dismissal. 13. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.