JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.7.2005 rendered by learned Presiding Officer and Special Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Surendranagar in Special Case No. 22 of 2003. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in the field of the complainant's brother-in-law Gordhanbhai, the respondents accused had put their 30 cattles for grazing with clear intention to damage the crop of said Gordhanbhai and thereby damaged the crop of cotton valued at Rs. 50000/-. It is further alleged that the accused persons were also giving filthy abuses to the complainant and prosecution witnesses towards their caste with clear intention to insult the complainant and prosecution witnesses in public at large. It is alleged that the accused persons had also given threats to the complainant and prosecution witnesses to damage all the crops of the field. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as original complaint Exh.27, panchnama of scene of offence Exh.29, panchnama of arrest of the accused Exh.30 etc. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and wrongfully granted benefit of acquittal to the accused though there is ample evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime in question. He further argued that though the complainant as well as eye witness Laxmiben Palabhai have supported the case of the prosecution and even their evidence is also getting support from the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5, though learned trial Court did not believe the evidence of the said witnesses as in their evidence, learned trial Court has found no uniformity due to contradictions and improvements. In his submission, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Viral Vyas, learned advocate for Mr. A.M. Dagli, learned Advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Vyas further submitted that allegation made by the complainant herself is vague as the respondents were sitting over the boundary of the agricultural field and, therefore, upon presumption, they have been made responsible for grazing their cattle in the field of the complainant. He submitted that even the say of the complainant is not getting support from the deposition of eye witness Laxmiben Palabhai. He submitted that even the say of the complainant is not getting support from the deposition of eye witness Laxmiben Palabhai. He submitted that even on going through the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5, the entire case of the prosecution falls and the respondents are not at all involved in the offence and they have been wrongly implicated as a counter blast to the offence of murder of Gordhanbhai who is near relative of the complainant and in the said offence, near relatives of the respondents were involved. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution case, on 20.11.2002 at about 11.00 O'clock the respondents trespassed upon the agricultural field of Gordhanbhai who is brother-in-law of the complainant. It is alleged that the respondents were unlawfully grazing their cattle in order to destroy standing crops and knowing full well that the complainant as well as said Gordhanbhai belong to the scheduled caste, the respondents have uttered derogatory words concerning to the caste of the complainant and, therefore, the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 143, 504, 506(1) of IPC, section 183 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 8.1 PW 1 - Ramuben Manubhai who is complainant has deposed that she belongs to the scheduled caste. The witness stated that the agricultural field of her brother-in-law Gordhanbhai is adjacent to her field. The witness stated that in the field of her brother-in-law, about 31 animals were grazing and she had gone to evict them from the field, at that time, the respondents who were sitting on the boundary of the field of Gordhanbhai have uttered derogatory words concerning to his caste. The witness stated that in the field of her brother-in-law, about 31 animals were grazing and she had gone to evict them from the field, at that time, the respondents who were sitting on the boundary of the field of Gordhanbhai have uttered derogatory words concerning to his caste. The witness stated that at that time, her sister-in- law (Derani) Laxmiben also arrived and thereafter the respondents fled away from the place of incident. In her cross examination, the witness has admitted that she did not know that animals released from the panchayat were not belonging to the respondents. 8.2 PW 2 Laxmiben Palabhai has deposed that Ramjibhai Dayabhai is her grandfather. The witness stated that Gordhanbhai has been murdered and on the day of incident, while she visited the agricultural field of Gordhanbhai, there was standing crops of cotton seeds and her sister-in-law (Jethani) Ramuben was evicting them; at that time, the persons whose animals were grazing left the place and she did not seen any owner of the cattle. PW 4 Ramjibhai Dayabhai Makwana has deposed that his son Gordhanbhai was running the shop who has been murdered on 30.9.2002 and he lodged the complaint. The witness stated that the incident as regards to grazing cattle occurred for about two years prior to the date of deposition and he had been informed by Ramuben and Laxmiben. The witness further deposed that while noticing that the persons are illegally grazing cattle and after release of cattle, all have gone to the house of Shamlabhai and Verabhai to whom cattle were belonging. 8.3 On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it appears that, indisputably near relative of the complainant as well as witnesses one Gordhanbhai was murdered on 30.9.2002 and complaint was lodged against near relatives of the respondents, due to which, it appears that they have been wrongly implicated in the present offence. It is also noticed that there is no uniformity in the evidence of the complainant as well as eye witness Laxmiben Palabhai. Similarly, PW 4 Ramjibhai Dayabhai Makwana, father-in-law of the complainant has also deposed that aforesaid 31 animals were not belonging to the present respondents, but they were belonging to Shamlabhai and Verabhai. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence as brought on record, the accused cannot be linked with the crime in question as the animals were not belonging to the respondents. In view of the aforesaid nature of evidence as brought on record, the accused cannot be linked with the crime in question as the animals were not belonging to the respondents. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, 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. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned 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 learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.