JUDGMENT: K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant - State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, Navsari in Sessions Case No. 90/1992 whereby the respondents were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 307, 324, 326 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. The case in brief is as under:-- "3.1. On 30.07.1992 at about 1.00 pm, the respondents are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly with a common intention and then assaulted Raju alias Jarda Nanubhai and Arvind Ramjor Oza. The said assault was carried out because of a previous enmity. The accused are alleged to have used a sword, a Rampuri knife and a hockey stick in the commission of the offences. One - Shailesh Shyamlal Verma was assaulted with the above weapons and injuries were also caused to Devendra Ramjor and Shailesh Verma, as a result of which the said persons expired and hence, the accused were charged with committed murder of the above persons. 3.2. On the basis of the complaint filed, the investigation commenced. Charges were led against all the original accused in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Since it was a Sessions triable case, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3.3. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-- Particulars Exh. Complaint Rajubhai Nanubhai 11 Rajenbhai Bhogilal 10 Medical Officer Dr. Ramratan Himmatram Ramavat 6 Panch witness Mohammed Safi  Gulam Mulla 13 Panch Witness Lalitaprasad Shitlaprasad 15 Panch Witness Parasnath Gajaghar 17 Investigating Officer and PSI Chandrakant Bachulal Gandhi 18 The prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidence, some of them are:-- Particulars Exh. Original complaint 19 Panchnama of the position of the body of the complainant 14 Panchnama of the scene of offence 16 The Yadi written by the Railway Police Medical Officer 9 Medical certificate 7 Letter written by the Medical Officer Valsed to the PSI Railway 8 3.4. Original complaint 19 Panchnama of the position of the body of the complainant 14 Panchnama of the scene of offence 16 The Yadi written by the Railway Police Medical Officer 9 Medical certificate 7 Letter written by the Medical Officer Valsed to the PSI Railway 8 3.4. At the end of the trial, further statement of the accused under Section 313of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which the respondents pleaded not guilty and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. Thus, after recording the further statement of the accused and hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the above judgment and order. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal has been filed by the State, as aforesaid." 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant - State has taken this Court to the medical evidence and has submitted that the presence of the accused is proved in the commission of the crime. It is further submitted that in view of the medical evidence which has been brought on record, all the accused should be convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that the medical evidence of Dr. Ramratan Himmatlal Ramavat at Exhibit 40 as well as the Certificates at Exhibits 42 and 43 support the oral version of the prosecution witnesses, including the injured. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires interference of this Court and the judgment and order of the learned Judge qua the acquittal of the respondents should be upturned by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents accused Mr. P.V. Patadiya has drawn our attention to the cross complaint that has been filed and also to Paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is further submitted that the evidence adduced also does not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, this Court should not interfere in the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in: (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 , the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 6. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in: (2006) 6 S.C.C. 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." Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in : (2007) 4 S.C.C. 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. 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. [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." 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. Even in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in : (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex 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. 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. 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." 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 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of MP reported in: 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors, reported in: (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 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 running condition. 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." Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in: AIR 2013 SCC 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. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in: AIR 2013 SCC 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 appellant 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 ]." 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. [Vide State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Others,: (2004) 5 SCC 573 ]." 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:-- "This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary: (1967) 1 SCR 93 : ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate 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." Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and Ors v. State of Karnataka, reported in: JT 2013(7) SC 66. 7. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case. While going through the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there are clear, cogent and convincing reasons given for arriving at the acquittal of the respondents. We are also of the view that even if a second view is possible, in view of the above referred decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it would not be in the interest of justice to reverse the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Apart from that, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant - State is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record. In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned trial court and in our view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 8. The Appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. In that view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned trial court and in our view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 8. The Appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad, Navsari in Sessions Case No. 90/1992 stands confirmed. Record and proceedings be sent to the concerned Trial court forthwith.