JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 2374 of 2005 preferred by the State of Gujarat is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the Special Judge, FTC No. 3, Surendranagar in Special Case No. 42 of 2000, whereby the accused Nos. 1 & 3 have been convicted of the charges levelled against them under Sections 307 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default imprisonment for two months under Section 307 IPC. No separate sentence has been imposed under Section 120B IPC. The said appeal has been filed for enhancement of sentence imposed upon accused Nos. 1 & 3. Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of 2005 has been preferred by original accused No. 3 against the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction dated 01.08.2005. 1.1 Similarly, the State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2377 of 2005 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 01.08.2005 passed by Special Judge, FTC No. 3, Surendranagar in Special Case No. 42 of 2000, whereby the accused No. 1 has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Section 3(2)(v) of Atrocity Act read with Section 135 of B.P. Act. Original accused Nos. 2 & 4 are acquitted of the charge under Sections 307, 120B of IPC and 135 of B.P. Act. Similarly, original accused No. 3 is acquitted under section 135 of B.P. Act. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant who was cooking in her house, after hearing some commotion, rushed out of the house and saw that the four accused were standing in front of her husband - injured. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 gave knife blow on her husband and he fell down. Thereafter original accused No. 2 caught hold of him and made him stand and original accused No. 3 again gave knife blow to her husband on his right hand & head whereas original accused No. 4 gave pipe blow on the leg of her husband. At that time, complainant started shouting and the accused persons left the scene of offence. 2.1 Thereafter, offence was registered against the present accused and after their arrest and necessary investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused. At that time, complainant started shouting and the accused persons left the scene of offence. 2.1 Thereafter, offence was registered against the present accused and after their arrest and necessary investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court. 2.2 The trial was initiated against the accused and during the course of trial the prosecution examined the following witnesses as oral evidences: Sr. No. Name od Witness Exhibit No. 1 Kantaben Laljibhai 27 2 Laljibhai Chhanabhai 30 3 Joshnaben Laljibhai 31 4 Bipinbhai Laljibhai 46 5 Dr. Sailesh Bhatt 33 6 Dr. Mangalsinh Ramsinh 53 7 Dr. Ritesh Patel 56 8 Dr. Kamlesh Badreshwara 62 9 Popatbhai Lavjibhai 37 10 Rameshbhai Dabhi 42 11 Vashrambhai Nathubhai 44 12 Laxmanbhai Hamirbhai 54 13 Bipinchandra Chauhan 50 14 Omkar Joshi 35 15 Chaturbhai Valjibhai 36 16 Dhirajlal Parmar 47 17 Rajen Ladva 58 18 Kuldipsinh Lochab 65 2.3 The prosecution also exhibited as many as 23 documents as documentary evidences which have been perused by us such as FIR at Ex. 28, medical certificate of injured at Ex. 34, arrest panchnama at Ex. 38, FSL report at Ex. 67, Serological report at Ex. 68, panchnama of scene of offence at Ex. 55, receipt of muddamal by FSL at Ex. 69-70, Dying declaration of injured at Ex. 52 and yadi of muddamal sent to FSL at Ex. 66 etc. 2.4 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 trial court convicted/acquitted accused as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the accused and the State have preferred the present appeals. 3. Ms. CM Shah, learned APP appearing for the State in both the appeals submitted that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law and that 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 respondents so far as the acquittal is concerned. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She submitted that the sentence imposed upon the accused under Section 307 IPC is on lesser side and requires to be enhanced. 3.1 Ms. Shah, however, submitted that the trial court has given cogent reasons for sustaining the conviction of accused No. 1 of Sessions Case No. 47 of 2000 under sections 307 & 120B of Indian Penal Code and that this court may not interfere in Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of 2005. She stated that the trial court has based the conviction not only on the statements of the eye witnesses but also considered entire circumstances of the case and the facts which are proved by cogent evidence coupled with the medical evidence which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were involved in the alleged incident. She has drawn the attention of this Court to the statements of eye witnesses, medical evidence and the panchnamas. She submitted that, however, the sentence imposed may be enhanced. 4. Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Raxit Dholakia, learned advocate for the accused contended that the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused under the sections concerned. He submitted that the trial court having gone into the evidence in detail is justified in acquitting the accused when no case is made out against them under the sections they are so acquitted. 4.1 Mr. Lakhani submitted that so far as Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of 2005 is concerned, the case against accused No. 3 cannot be said to have been proved inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence found against him. He submitted that be that as it may, though this is a case of clean acquittal, he has restricted his arguments to alteration of conviction imposed upon accused No. 3 under Section 307 IPC to one under Section 323 or 324 of IPC. He submitted that the incident is of the year 2002 and almost 14 years have passed. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the nature and number of injuries sustained by the injured and submitted that considering the nature of injuries and passage of time, this Court may consider the offence under section 323 or 324 of IPC and impose suitable fine as this court may think fit. 4.2 Mr. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the nature and number of injuries sustained by the injured and submitted that considering the nature of injuries and passage of time, this Court may consider the offence under section 323 or 324 of IPC and impose suitable fine as this court may think fit. 4.2 Mr. Lakhani, learned advocate appearing for the accused submitted that this Court may not interfere in the enhancement appeal filed by the State. 5. We have perused the records of the case. We have gone through the medical evidence on record. Since, Mr. Lakhani has restricted his arguments to the alteration of conviction from one under Section307 to either Section 323 or 324 as the Court deems fit, we do not discuss the evidence so far as the guilt of the accused is concerned. The accused is held guilty of the injuries inflicted upon the injured witness. 6. However, it shall be pertinent to refer to the medical evidence, more particularly the number and nature of injuries sustained by the injured witness which is reproduced hereunder: "- Stab wound over (Rt) lat. region of abdomen 2 cm x 1/2 cm into deep into peritoneum - stab wound over epigastric region of 2 cm x 1/2 cm x into deep to perineum. - Stab wound over (lt) lower scapular region of size 3 cm x 1 cm x deep to the thoracic cavity. - Incised wound over (lt) temporal parietal region of size 3 cm x 1 cm, muscle deep, bleeding - Incised wound over (rt) palm near the base of (Rt) thumb of size 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, bleeding." 7. We have gone through the medical evidence of the doctors who had treated the injured victim. From the injury certificate and the evidence of doctor, coupled with the fact that almost 16 years have passed we are of the view that the contention raised by learned advocate for the appellant is required to be accepted. We are inclined to alter conviction of accused persons from Section 307 of Indian Penal Code to one under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. 8. We are inclined to alter conviction of accused persons from Section 307 of Indian Penal Code to one under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. 8. As far as the acquittal of rest of the accused is concerned, 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 v. 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." 8.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. 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, re-appreciate 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." 8.2 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. 8.3 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." 8.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 8.5 In the case of Luna Ram v. 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." 8.6 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookiah and Anr. v. 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. v. 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 leveled 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 file d 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 sc an through and if need be reappreciate 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 ]" 8.7 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 v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: "... Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. 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." 8.8 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. We find that the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the trial court with regard to the role of acquitted accused in both the appeals are not required to be interfered with. Even the enhancement appeal does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeals filed by respondent - State do not have any merits and are required to be dismissed. 9. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 1637 of 2005 is partly allowed. The conviction of original accused No. 3 under Section 307 is altered to one under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code. Original accused No. 3 is imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, imprisonment for one year under Section 324 of IPC. It is clarified that he is not required to undergo imprisonment under Section 324 IPC if he pays the amount of fine of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of ten weeks from today. Rest of the judgment and order shall remain the same. Judgment and order dated 01.08.2005 passed in Special Case No. 42 of 2000 is modified accordingly. R & P to be sent back to the trial court forthwith.