JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 1296/2010 is concerned, the applicant-accused had already undergone the sentence. Accordingly, the appeal has become academic and is disposed of accordingly. 2. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 1610/2010 only is taken up for hearing on merits today. 3. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Modasa in Sessions Case No. 14 of 2010, whereby the accused has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default sentence of nine months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and further the accused has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that complainant-Abhabhai Danabhai registered a complaint against present accused with Bayad Police Station being I-C.R. No. 62/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the present accused had illicit relationship with Madhuben and as he wanted to keep Madhuben as his wife. During the period between 02.10.2009 at about 08:00 p.m. and 03.10.2009 at about 05:00 a.m., at Village: Pagiyana Muvada, he quarreled with his wife deceased-Hiraben, provoked on her, inflicted Dhoka and fist blows on her, caused serious injuries to her and committed her death. Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4.1 The Trial Court framed charges against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: Sr. 4.1 The Trial Court framed charges against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses: Sr. No. Witness Exhibits 1 Complainant-Abhabhai Danabhai Khant 8 2 Javanbhai Manabhai Marivad 11 3 Jasvantsinh Revsinh Solanki 13 4 Gopalsinh Shankarsinh Solanki 17 5 Dilipsinh Babarsinh Dabhi 19 6 Pratapsinh Rumalsinh Solanki 23 7 Javansinh Bhalsinh Parmar 27 8 Rafikbhai Karimbhai Mirja 28 9 Manharbhai Kabhai Barot 31 10 Jayrajbhai Bhalji Solanki 32 11 Dashrathbhai Bhulabhai Prajapati 36 12 Laxmanji Badaji Ninama 39 13 Manishaben Bhalji Solanki 41 14 Danabhai Jorabhai Khant 42 15 Gangaben Danabhai Jorabhai Khant 43 16 Dr. Mehulkumar Mahendrabhai Patel 44 17 Gitaben Khumabhai Rabari 48 18 I.O.-Pravinsinh Natvarsinh Kher 56 19 I.O.-Atulkumar Kantilal Patel 59 4.2 The prosecution has also relied upon the following documentary evidences: Sr. No. Documentary evidence Exhibits 1 Complaint 9 2 Inquest Panchnama. 12 3 Panchnama of scene of offence. 14 4 Muddamal Article No. 1, slip containing signatures of panchas with regard to bloodstained cotton piece. 15 5 Muddamal Article No. 2, slip containing signatures of panchas with regard to control cotton piece. 16 6 Recovery panchnama of clothes of dead body. 20 7 Muddamal Article No. 3, slip containing signatures of panchas with regard to recovery of blouse 21 8 Muddamal Article No. 4, slip containing signatures of panchas with regard to petticoat. 22 9 Recovery panchnama of clothes of accused and his body. 24 10 Muddamal Article No. 5, slip containing signatures of panchas with regard to baniyan. 25 11 Muddamal Article No. 6, slip containing signatures of panchas with regard to pant 26 12 Recovery panchnama of wooden dhoka shown by accused. 29 13 Muddamal Article No. 7, slip containing signatures of panchas with regard to wooden dhoka. 30 14 Police Yadi regarding map of scene of offence 37 15 Map of scene of offence 38 16 Original copy of Bayad Police Station’s diary in respencet of complaint. 40 17 Original postmortem report of deceased-Hiraben. 45 18 Yadi written by PSI Bayad for performing postmortem of deceased-Hiraben. 46 19 Police report regarding body of deceased for investigation after her death. 40 17 Original postmortem report of deceased-Hiraben. 45 18 Yadi written by PSI Bayad for performing postmortem of deceased-Hiraben. 46 19 Police report regarding body of deceased for investigation after her death. 60 20 Muddamal Entry 61 21 Muddamal Entry 62 22 Police yadi written in respect of inquest panchnama to Executive Magistrate, Bayad. 63 23 Acknowledgement receipt of muddamal by FSL 64 24 Acknowledgement receipt of muddamal by FSL 65 25 Forwarding letter of FSL 66 26 Analysis report of FSL 67 27 Forwarding letter of FSL 68 28 Analysis report of FSL 69 29 Analysis report of FSL Serology Section 70 30 Forwarding letter of FSL 71 31 Analysis report of FSL biology section 72 32 Analysis report of FSL Serology Section 73 33 Copy of proclamation of Section 73(1) of Bombay Police Act. 74 4.3 At the end of the trial and 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 Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC by impugned judgment and order. 4.4 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant-State has preferred the acquittal appeal. 5. Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the Trial Court committed an error in releasing the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC. It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions 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 the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present accused. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. 6. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the accused supported the impugned judgment and order so far as acquittal of the accused under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC is concerned and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference. 7. 6. Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, learned advocate for the accused supported the impugned judgment and order so far as acquittal of the accused under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC is concerned and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference. 7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below." 7.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: [1] An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [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." 7.2 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even 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. 7.3 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr., reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed 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 characterized 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. 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." 7.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of M.P., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 7.5 In the case of Luna Ram Vs. Bhupat Singh and Ors. reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in paras 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 ankle 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 post-mortem 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 a 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." 7.6 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. Vs. 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. Vs. 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 appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze 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. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 : ( AIR 2004 SC 4520 : 2004 AIR SCW 4321)]" 7.8 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. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: "This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary ( (1967) 1 SCR 93 : AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial 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." 7.9 Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary. 8. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have appreciated, reappreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8.1 We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence on record. It appears that the alleged incident occurred in a fit of rage. The Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. Even otherwise, the incident is of the year 2009 and we are not inclined to disturb the position which has been prevailing for these many years. 9. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against him are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. We are in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the trial Court. No interference is warranted with the judgment and order of the trial Court. 10. Criminal Appeal No. 1296/2010 is disposed of. As far as Criminal Appeal No. 1610/2010 is concerned, the judgment and order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Modasa arising from Sessions Case No. 14/2010 is confirmed and accordingly, acquittal appeal is dismissed.. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.