JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code'), is directed against the judgment and order dated 19/05/1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1986, whereby all the accused have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25/07/1986 at about 9:30 a.m. in a field situated in the sim of village: Khijadiya Dhalsher, the respondents - original accused, by forming unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object to kill deceased namely Amarsi Bhavan and Shivji Hansraj, illegally trespassed in the said field possessing with them deadly weapons like wooden sticks and axe and assaulted the deceased and killed them. At the same place and time, the accused also made attack on complainant - Savitaben and injured her. Thus, the accused committed the offence, alleged against them for which, a complaint came to be lodged against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 447 of the IPC and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2.1 Pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Sessions Court at Morbi. 2.2 The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. 2.3 In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined following witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence, as under: ORAL EVIDENCE S/n. Name of Witness Exh. 1 Dr. Pravinchandra Harjivanbhai 15 2 Dr. Vimal Narendraray Buch 27 3 Jyotsana Maneklal Pattani 31 4 Anantray Lalji Pandya 38 5 Savitaben Prabhubhai 43 6 Dr. Jayantilal Karamshibhai Tanna 51 7 Bhavnaben Bavjibhai 65 8 Dr. 1 Dr. Pravinchandra Harjivanbhai 15 2 Dr. Vimal Narendraray Buch 27 3 Jyotsana Maneklal Pattani 31 4 Anantray Lalji Pandya 38 5 Savitaben Prabhubhai 43 6 Dr. Jayantilal Karamshibhai Tanna 51 7 Bhavnaben Bavjibhai 65 8 Dr. Jagdish Bhikhalal Maheta 45 9 Bavji Daya 66 10 Virji Puja 67 11 Mansukh Dhanjibhai 80 12 Savji Madha 81 13 Ukabhai Gangarambhai 83 14 Panchan Ambabhai 84 15 Bhudarji Bhagvanji 85 16 Parsotam Vasram 95 17 Hemiben Amarsibhai 97 18 Karsan Ananda 99 19 Manji Punjabhai 101 20 Vasudan Naranbhai 102 21 Isabhai Rahimbhai 105 22 Shahbhai Alibhai 108 23 Sangrambhai Naranbhai 109 24 Mansukhbhai Bhavanbhai 110 25 Dalpatsinh Hematsinh Rathod 111 26 Vijaybhai Jivajibhai Menat 113 27 Tarunkumar Amrutlal Barot 109 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S/n. Document Exh. 1 Original FIR Mark 1/1 2 Complaint dated 25/7/86 given by Savitaben 3 Medical Certificate dated 25/7/86 of Hospital at Tankara 16 4 X-ray of Karnabhai Kanabhai 17 5 X-ray of Dhanabhai Ladhabhai 18 6 Medical cases papers of Dhanabhai Badhabhai 19 7 Medical case record of Dhanabhai Badhabhai 20 8 Medical Certificate of Dhanabhai Badhabhai 21 9 Medical cases papers of Karnabhai Kanabhai 22 10 Medical case record of Karnabhai Kanabhai 23 11 Medical Certificate of Karnabhai Kanabhai 24 12 Report of Police to MO 25 13 Report of Police to MO for PM 28 14 Report of MO, Tankara to MO, Rajkot 29 15 PM Report of Amarsi Bhavan 30 16 PM Report of Shivraj Hansraj 32 17 Report from Pratapnagar Police Station, Rajkot 33 18 Report of MO, Rajkot as to blood group of Shivji Hansraj 34 19 Case of Shivji Hansraj of Rajkot Civil Hospital 35 20 Report of Tankara Police to MO, Morbi 36 21 Report of PSI, Morbi City as to accused Dhana and Pola 37 22 Report of Circle Inspector, Tankara 39 23 Map of place of incident 40 24 Map of place of incident 41 25 Report of Mamlatdar, Morbi to PSI, Tankara 42 26 Report of PSI, Tankara to MO 46 27 Blood group report of Karna Kana 47 28 Blood group report of Dhana Badha 48 29 Yadi of MO, Morbi to PSI, Tankara 49 30 Report of Tankara Police to MO, Tankara 52 31 Yadi to MO, Tankara to PSI, Tankara 53 32 Case of treatment to Shivlal Hansraj 54 33 Yadi to MO, Tankara to PSI, Tankara 55 34 Case of treatment to Amarsi Bhavan 56 35 Report of PSI, Tankara to MO, Tankara 57 36 Case of treatment to Savitaben Patel 58 37 Yadi of MO, Tankara to PSI, Tankara 59 38 Report of Tankara Police to MO, Tankara 60 39 Case of treatment to Karna Kana 61 40 Yadi of MO, Tankara to PSI, Tankara 62 41 Case of treatment to Dhana Badha 63 42 Yadi of Mo, Tankara to PSI, Tankara 64 43 DE List submitted by APP 76 44 Inquest Panchnama 77 45 Panchnama as to seizure of clothes 78 46 Panchnama of place of offence 93 47 Arrest Panchnama 96 48 Panchnama of physical condition of Savitaben 98 49 Discovery Panchnama at the instance of Pola Kana 100 50 Discovery Panchnama at the instance of Karna kana and Dhana Badha 103 51 Panchnama of blood stained clothes changed by Dhana Badha and Karna Kana 104 52 Panchnama of physical condition of Shivji Hansraj 107 53 Report of PSI, Tankara to FSL 112 54 Note of Chemical Analyzer 114 55 Report of Chemical Analyzer 115 56 Note of Chemical Analyzer 116 57 Report of Chemical Analyzer 117 58 Extract of Police Station Diary of Pradhyumannagar Police Station 125 59 Yadi of PSO to PSI, Pradhyumannagar Police Station, Rajkot 127 60 Extract of Police Station Diary of Pradhyumannagar Police Station 129 61 Copy of extract of General Hospital, Rajkot 131 2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of Code and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against them by impugned judgment and order. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Radhesh Vyas, learned advocate for Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the respondents - original accused. 3.1 Mr. Amin, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant - State, has submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in releasing the respondents - accused. It was contended by him that the impugned 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 offence alleged against the present respondents - original accused. He took this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses more particularly, the depositions of PW-1 - Dr. Pravinchandra Harjivanbhai, exh. 15, PW-2 - Dr. Vimal Narendraray Buch, exh. 27, PW-6 - Dr. Jayantilal Karamshibhai Tanna, exh. 51, PW-5 - Savitaben Prabhubhai, the complainant and eye-witness, exh. 43, PW-10 - Virji Puja, exh. 67 PW-11 - Mansukhbhai Dhanjibhai, exh. 80, PW-12 - Savji Madha, exh. 81 and the evidence of other prosecution witnesses as well as the documentary evidence forthcoming on record, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the respondents - accused beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the presence of Savitaben, the complainant, at the spot is proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the evidence of Dr. Jayantilal Karamshibhai Tanna, exh. 51 as this witness had examined and treated Savitaben, the complainant and the original accused Nos. 6 and 7 namely Rabari Dhana Badha and Rabari Karna Kana after the incident in question had occurred. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that from the FSL Report, Panchnamas as well as other corroborative evidence on record also, the involvement of original accused Nos. 6 and 7 in the crimes is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, on perusal of the FSL Report, it appears that blood of the deceased was found from the weapons as well as on the clothes of the accused. 6 and 7 in the crimes is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, on perusal of the FSL Report, it appears that blood of the deceased was found from the weapons as well as on the clothes of the accused. Last but not the least, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of the evidence on record, when the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused, the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them for such a serious offence and accordingly, he requested to interfere in the appeal. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents - original accused supported the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law, does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that there are material contradictions and improvements in the prosecution case and the learned trial Judge, after taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, has come to such a conclusion, which is just and proper. It is submitted that though available, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness and all the witnesses/panchas are the relatives and interested witnesses. He further submitted that at the time when janva jog entry of the offence was registered, Savji Madha did not reveal the incident he witnessed to anyone including to the police. The learned advocate for the accused further submitted that nothing has come out from the evidence on record as to how and as to which accused had inflicted which injury. Moreover, he submitted that declaration of the deceased before Panch Witness - PW-14 -Panchan Amba, exh. 84 is not reliable and believable for the reason that in cross-examination, he has given the names of other persons who are not the accused in the case on hand. Moreover, from the medical evidence it appears that the deceased was not conscious enough to speak and disclose anything. 84 is not reliable and believable for the reason that in cross-examination, he has given the names of other persons who are not the accused in the case on hand. Moreover, from the medical evidence it appears that the deceased was not conscious enough to speak and disclose anything. The learned advocate for the accused further submitted that so far as complaint given by Savitaben is concerned, it is a statement under Section 161 of the Code and is not admissible in evidence as barred by Section 162 of the Code and therefore, the complainant given by Savitaben cannot be termed as FIR. 4.1 The learned advocate for the accused further submitted that so far as eye-witnesses to the incident in question viz. Savitaben, the complainant, Virji Puja and Savji Madha are concerned, there are material contradictions and improvements in their versions. According to Savitaben, the incident had taken place inside the machine room, however, while deposing before the Court she has deposed that the incident had taken place at the machine room but was stretched to the road of Ghansar. Moreover, this witness does not know as to who had attacked the deceased and with which weapon. Moreover, this witness did not narrate the full incident before the police. Moreover, there is discrepancy as to the names of the accused given by this witness. So far as other eye-witnesses are concerned, they also do not describe the incident and as to who had inflicted which injury and by which weapon. Moreover, according to witness Savji Madha, witness Virji Puja had arrived after he reached the spot. Moreover, this witness and Virji Puja had met on road, however, Virji Puja did not disclose this fact in his evidence. Moreover, witness - Savji Madha also had gone with the brother of the deceased to the police station and if he had, in fact, seen the offence in question, he must have revealed the names of the accused before the police, which is not the case. Moreover, witness - Savji Madha also had gone with the brother of the deceased to the police station and if he had, in fact, seen the offence in question, he must have revealed the names of the accused before the police, which is not the case. He further took us through the relevant discussion made by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the learned trial Judge, after due appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before him, dealing with each every aspect of the matter minutely, has rightly acquitted the accused and accordingly, it is requested that this Court should not interfere in appeal. 5. 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 Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 judgement 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." 5.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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. 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. 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." 5.2 Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, 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. 5.3 Even in a recent decision of the Hon'ble 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. 5.3 Even in a recent decision of the Hon'ble 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 judgement 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." 5.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble 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. 5.5 In the case of Luna Ram v. Bhupat Singh and Ors., reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Hon'ble 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 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 judgement 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." 5.6 Even in a recent decision of the Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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)]" 5.7 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 Hon'ble 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." 5.8 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. 6. We have examined the matter carefully and gone through the evidence on record. We have re-appreciated and re-evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of the latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We find that the trial Court while considering the evidence on record, has very elaborately discussed the evidence adduced before it and has come to such a conclusion and we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge is probable. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor 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. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor 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 that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing impugned judgment and order. 7. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them 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. No interference is warranted with the judgment and order of the trial Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present appeal, filed by the State against acquittal, fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 19/05/1993, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 1986, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P to the trial Court forthwith.