JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties in all the Appeals. 2. All the above Appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions case No. 82/1996 whereby the accused - Hyderkhan Alamkhan under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years. The other accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Criminal Appeal No. 187/1997 is an Appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence qua the accused - Chauhan Hyderkhan Alamkhan whereas Criminal Appeal No. 188/1997 is the Appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of the accused - Chauhan Alamkhan Dhanekhan, Sairabibi Alamkhan, Chauhan Mustafakhan Rasidkhan and Chauhan Arifkhan Rasidkhan. 4. Criminal Appeal No. 1152/1996 is the Appeal preferred by the accused - Chauhan Hyderkhan Alamkhan challenging his conviction and sentence passed vide the above cited judgment and order. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Adil Mehta appearing for the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 188/1997 states that the accused No. 1 - Chauhan Hyderkhan Alamkhan and the accused No. 2 - Chauhan Alamkhan Ghanekhan has expired. In view of the above, Criminal Appeals No. 1152/1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 187/1997 stands abated. 6. The brief facts and the incident which allegedly occurred on 10.07.1995 are as under :- "It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant - Mehboobkan Alladkhan is involved in agricultural activities. On the said day, when the complainant and his brother Kadarkhan Alladkhan were returning back from their fields, they observed that their younger brother Abdulrashid Alladkhan of Mehsana alongwith another brother Nabidkhan Alladkhan were standing at the bus stand for supplying milk. Both the brothers called the complainant and Kadarkhan and informed him that poison had been put in the utensil/jar containing milk by one - Hyderkhan Alamkhan Ghanekhan. On hearing this, the complainant and his brother Kadarkhan went to the house of Hyderkhan Alamkhan. The father of Hyderkhan, Alamkhan Ghanekhan was also present. Hence, the complainant and his brother requested that this incident may not be repeated once again and started on their way back to the residence. On hearing this, the complainant and his brother Kadarkhan went to the house of Hyderkhan Alamkhan. The father of Hyderkhan, Alamkhan Ghanekhan was also present. Hence, the complainant and his brother requested that this incident may not be repeated once again and started on their way back to the residence. While going back to their residence, it is alleged that Hyderkhan Alamkhan armed with a dharia intercepted the two on the way and gave one blow with a dharia on Kadarkhan because of which he fell down. At that juncture, Sairabibi Alamkhan and Alamkhan Ghanekhan caught hold of the complainant and was given kick and fist blows. Then Mustaqkhan Rasidkhan and Aarifkhan Rasidkhan armed with an iron pipe arrived and gave blows with the iron pipe on the head and hand of Kadarkhan. At that moment, Sabihussain Yasinkhan and Jigsarali Yasinkhan came running, intervened and tried to make peace between the two parties. Because of blows received by Kadarkan, he was rendered unconscious, had blood running all over him and was lying on the ground. Hence, the complainant alongwith Jigsarali Hajirali and Sabihussain Hajirali got Kadarkhan admitted at the hospital where he was given primary first aid and then was transferred to the Civil Hospital at Mehsana. The complainant received injuries on his leg and the doctor opined that Kadarkhan had received fractures on his head and it was a serious case. In this manner, the accused are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like dharia, iron pipe inflicted serious injuries on the complainant's brother and the complainant and also put poison in the utensil containing milk. A complaint in this regard was lodged under Sections 307, 147, 148, 323 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code." 6.1. The chargesheet was led before the learned Magistrate and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, being Sessions triable case. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. On completion of the evidence of prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. 6.2. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :- Particulars Exhibit Dr. Gangaram Shikhram Snehi 27 Dr. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them. On completion of the evidence of prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. 6.2. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :- Particulars Exhibit Dr. Gangaram Shikhram Snehi 27 Dr. Dhirajlal Jivanlal Soni 31 Mehmoodali Ijjatkhan 37 Mehmoodkhan Aladkhan 39 Kadarkhan Aladkhan 41 Rasidkhan Aladkhan 42 Jigsarali Hajirkhan 43 Sabirhssain Yasin Khan 44 Musekhan Mityamiya 45 Lakhabhai Jivabhai 46 Maganbhai Amtabhai 48 Suleman Siddikbhai 53 Dashrathji Dholaji 54 Kakusinh Ranjitsinh 56 Ritaben Pravinchandra Shah 58 Virendrasinh Sujaji Dabhi 60 The prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidences. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah has submitted that the order of acquittal is against law and the evidence on record. It ought to be appreciated that the intention of the accused was to commit murder of Kadarkhan Alamkhan and therefore, they had formed an unlawful assembly. It is further submitted that the accused were armed with lethal weapons like pipe and dharia and had attacked the victim. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires the interference of this Court and the accused be convicted under the appropriate sections. 8. 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." 9. 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. 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. 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." 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 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." 12. 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. 13. 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 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." 14. 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. 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 ]." 15. 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." 16. 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. 17. We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case and have also gone through the well reasoned judgment and order of the learned Judge. Considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited above, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in our view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 18. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 188/1997 is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.11.1996 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 82/1996 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.