JUDGMENT : R.P DHOLARIA, J. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09/12/2004 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2004 whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the original complainant Babubhai Karimbhai is residing at Bhavnagar and doing business at Alang. On 29/03/1999, at about 12:15 p.m, when he was going to pay money to the shop of Rameshbhai near Hotel of Bhimabhai at Madhia road, the accused persons came there and accused Babubhai Shivrambhai Purani Harijan assaulted the complainant with iron pipe without uttering a single word and then ran away. Thereafter, when the complainant came to his house, he was taken to Bhavnagar Government Hospital where the complaint was lodged before the Assistant Sub Inspector who was on Hospital Duty. 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bhavnagar, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 3 of 2004. The trial was initiated against the respondents. 3. To prove the case against the present respondents-accused, the prosecution has examined about nine 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 09/12/2004. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, Ms. S.J. Shaikh, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, Ms. S.J. Shaikh, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for respondent no. 2. 7. Mr. L.B Dabhi, learned APP has argued that though the complainant and other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the learned trial court did not believe the same and wrongly acquitted the accused. He has further argued 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 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 respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act which requires to be reversed as such and the accused are required to be convicted. 8. On the contrary, Ms. Shaikh, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 and Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 have supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and have argued that the prosecution has not brought on record the cause of incident and the evidence of injured complainant Babubhai himself is not reliable as during the course of deposition, he made material improvements and the story put forth by him is not supported by other independent witnesses. 2 have supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and have argued that the prosecution has not brought on record the cause of incident and the evidence of injured complainant Babubhai himself is not reliable as during the course of deposition, he made material improvements and the story put forth by him is not supported by other independent witnesses. Even the complainant himself has deposed that muddamal article being pipe was not used by the respondent accused in the incident and in that view of the matter, the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of present respondents and the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. It is further argued that on going through the entire FIR, nothing is revealed against the respondent-Gauriben. Consequently therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court. 9. 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 and learned advocate for the respondents. 10. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties to the present proceedings and having perused the impugned judgment as well as records and proceedings, as per the prosecution version, it clearly reveals that, on 29/03/1999, at about 12:15 p.m during the nocturnal hours, respondent no. 1 assaulted the complainant by pipe and respondent nos. 2 and 3 aided and abated thereof and thereby the respondents committed the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. PW-1 Babubhai Karimbhai Lohia who is the complainant has deposed that the incident occurred at about 12:00 p.m i.e during the nocturnal hours while he was going to pan bidi shop of Rameshbahi and at that time, respondent no. 1 came to that place and assaulted him by iron pipe over his head and thereafter fled away from the place of incident. He has further deposed that thereafter he went to his house and his brother took him to the hospital. He has deposed that respondents assaulted him because he was previously residing with Gauriben and thereafter he left her and due to such they have assaulted him. He has further deposed that thereafter he went to his house and his brother took him to the hospital. He has deposed that respondents assaulted him because he was previously residing with Gauriben and thereafter he left her and due to such they have assaulted him. He has further deposed that during the course of his deposition, muddamal article i.e iron pipe was shown to him and he has deposed that said pipe was not used in the incident and the said pipe was in the hand of Gauriben. In the cross examination, material improvements were brought on record as regards to the pipe in question as well as recording his presence at the place. He has also admitted that he did not mention that the accused Gauriben was holding any pipe at the time of incident. He has admitted that previously he was selling liquor. He has also admitted that several cases of prohibition as well as commission of murder etc. were registered against him. 12. PW-3 Nizam Mahammadbhai has deposed that incident occurred at about 12:00 p.m A mob was there where one lady was lying in injured condition. Except that, he did not notice anything else and he was declared hostile. 13. PW-4 Dr. Jaykrishna Ramdin Shrivastav has deposed that on 29/03/1999 while he was on duty at about 2:00 o' clock in the night hours, Babubhai Karimbhai came to him and upon examination, injury over his forehead was found. He has also deposed that by asking about the history, it is informed by Babubhai that at about 12:30, Babubhai Karimbhai was assaulted. In the cross examination, he has admitted that the injury found over body of Babubhai Karimbahi could be possible by falling on the heap of wood. 14. PW-7 Lalo has deposed that Babubhai Karimbhai is his brother and incident occurred during the nocturnal hours. He has further deposed that he noticed blow from his head and on being asked by him, his brother Babubhai narrated that in the area of Kumbharvada, quarrel took place with one lady namely Gauriben and her men. He has deposed that thereafter, Babubhai was taken to hospital. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he did not know why the incident occurred. 15. He has deposed that thereafter, Babubhai was taken to hospital. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he did not know why the incident occurred. 15. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clearly indicating that respondent-Gauriben received serious injuries and in consequence thereof, cross complaint was lodged against the complainant and others. The evidence of the complainant himself becomes doubtful as in his cross examination in chief itself, he has deposed that muddamal article no. 1 was belonging to respondent Gauriben. However, recovery panchnama is clearly indicative of the fact that muddamal article no. 1 was recovered from respondent no. 1 Babubhai Shivrambhai Purani Harijan and the evidence of other indicates that the said article was held by respondent Gauriben which is not getting corroboration from the panchnama as well as other evidences on record. On the contrary, the evidence on record clearly suggestive of the fact that said Gauriben was lying in bleeding condition at the place of incident. Consequently, therefore, it appears that the complainant himself was trying to implicate Gauriben in the offence. Not only that, over and above Babubhai Shivram, deceased Bavadin was implicated in the present complaint. 16. Taking into consideration medical certificate, there was single injury over forehead of the complainant and that too alleged to have been inflicted by respondent no. 1 as per the history given before the doctor. However, during the cross examination in chief, he has narrated that the muddamal pipe in question was with respondent no. 2 is contrary to each other. In that view of the matter, the evidence of the injured becomes doubtful. Independent witness Nizam as well as brother of the complainant has not supported the case of injured complainant. In that view of the matter also, the entire evidence of the complainant becomes doubtful. 17. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, the evidence of the complainant is found contrary to the complaint as well as material improvements are made in getting corroboration from the medical evidence as well as evidence of eye witness and his own brother. 18. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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.