JUDGMENT : R.P DHOLARIA, J. 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 31/01/2006 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Navsari in Sessions Case No. 116 of 2000 in whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02/03/2000 at about 23:30 hours complainant Rameshbhai Govindbhai Patel along with prosecution witnesses Bharatbhai Lallubhai and Kishorebhai had gone to attend nature call and while they were attending natural call, witness Bharatbhai shouted for help. That therefore, the complainant Rameshbahi and Kishorebhai rushed to the place of incident and saw that Bharatbhai was lying on the ground and the respondents accused were armed with iron pipes. That on inquiry, the prosecution witness Bharatbhai informed the complainant Rameshbhai that Harishbhai Gopalbhai inflicted blow with iron pipe on his head as well as Uttam Chhagan inflicted blow with piece of brick on his forehead and Uttam Chhagan and Kishore Chhagan gave kick and fist blow to him. That said incident arose due to enmities between the parties as regards to earlier dispute and compromise thereon. Thus, all the accused persons keeping in mind earlier dispute, gave filthy abuses and caused severe injuries to Bharatbhai. That injured Bharatbhai was taken to Bilimora Megushi Hospital. Thereafter a complaint was filed before the Bilimora Police Station on 03/03/2000. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandevi. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Navsari, as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered as Sessions Case No. 116 of 2000. 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. 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 31/01/2006. 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. R. Pujari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State. 7. Mr. L. R. Pujari, learned APP has argued that though the complainant as well as injured witness have supported the case of the prosecution and that is also getting corroboration from the other evidence, the learned trial court did not believe the same and wrongly acquitted the accused persons. It is contended by learned APP 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 respondents for the alleged offence under Sections 323, 325, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police 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, as per the prosecution version, it clearly reveals that on 02/03/2000, at about 23:30 hours, while complainant Rameshbhai and witness Bharatbhai and witness Kishorebhai had gone for natural call, the respondents assaulted Bharatbhai and the complainant and caused injury to them and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 10. PW-1 Rameshbhai Govindbhai Patel who is the complainant has deposed that on 02/03/2000 at about 11:30, while they went for natural call, at that time he heard screaming from Bharatbhai Lallubhai and said Bharatbhai Lallubhai was assaulted by accused Harishbhai Gopalbhai Patel by iron pipe and he was also assaulted by throwing brick over his head by the respondent-accused Uttam Chagan as well as the respondent Bhana Chhagan and Kishore Chhagan assaulted him by giving kick and fist blows. Thereafter, they went to hospital at Bilimora and thereafter lodged the complaint. He has deposed that he did not know the reason of the incident. In the cross examination, he has admitted that on 26/03/2000 while he was at police station, at that time, he came to know that a complaint is filed against him for committing murder of Laxmiben as well as committing injury over other persons. In his cross examination, lot of improvements and contradictions are brought on record. 11. PW-2 Bharatbhai Lallubhai Patel has deposed in similar lines in which PW-1 has deposed. PW-3 Kishorebhai Sukhabhai has also deposed in similar lines in which PW-1 has deposed. PW-7 Dr. Manish A. Mehta has deposed that on 03/03/2000, Rameshbhai came to him and upon his medical examination, injury over his forehead as well as backside was found. He has also deposed that on being asked to him, he gave history that somebody assaulted him at the outskirt of the village. The same fact is also narrated by injured Bharatbhai. 12. Manish A. Mehta has deposed that on 03/03/2000, Rameshbhai came to him and upon his medical examination, injury over his forehead as well as backside was found. He has also deposed that on being asked to him, he gave history that somebody assaulted him at the outskirt of the village. The same fact is also narrated by injured Bharatbhai. 12. On overall analysis of the evidence on record, it is clearly emerging out that on the day of incident, the place is wrongly alleged to have been shown by the complainant. In reality at the outskirt of village Undach, the complainant, injured witnesses and other persons have assaulted one Laxmiben and Kishore Chhagan and Shakuntala Kishore and due to assault over them, the complainant as well as other witnesses in the present case committed murder of Laxmiben for which they have been charge-sheeted in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2000 and in order to shield such incident, as a counter blast, the present complaint alleged to have been filed by the present complainant. Further, it appears that the complaint is filed as counter blast though the evidence of the complainant is not getting corroboration from the medical evidence and as per evidence of Dr. Manish, the injury over head as well as backside could have been possible by wooden log or iron pipe and not by the piece of brick. As per the evidence of the complainant himself, he was assaulted by the respondent by piece of brick and therefore, the same is not getting support from the medical evidence. Not only that but soon after the incident they were taken to the hospital wherein they have given history as someone assaulted by iron pipe and not named any one of the present respondents. 13. On overall evaluation of the evidence on record, it appears that this is a clear case emerging out to have been concocted as a counter blast against the present respondents in order to save themselves from the counter Sessions Case No. 78 of 2000 filed by the present respondents for committing murder of Laxmiben. The learned trial court has assigned sufficient reasons and properly dealt with the evidence and how the improvements and contradictions are came on record for recording the findings of acquittal. 14. The learned trial court has assigned sufficient reasons and properly dealt with the evidence and how the improvements and contradictions are came on record for recording the findings of acquittal. 14. 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 finds 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. 15. 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.