JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. It is reported that original accused No. 1-Pitha Hameer Aher has expired and hence, Criminal Appeal stands abated qua original accused No. 1. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 9-4-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1991 whereby the respondents-original accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 3. Short facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on 30-4-1991 at 1.30 a.m. or thereabout, the accused persons, with a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased and to cause injuries on the injured, formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of the same, entered illegally into the house of the complainant armed with deadly weapons like stick, axe and dharia and attacked on the deceased causing him fatal injuries. They also injured the complainant-Pareshkumar Arvindbhai and the witness Maltiben. A complaint was therefore filed by the complainant against the accused. In pursuance of said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against them. Thereafter charge was framed against the accused which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined following witnesses: P.W. No. Name of witness Exhibit No. 1 Dr. Satish Dinkarray Kalele 17 2 Paresh Arvindbhai, complainant 23 3 Maltiben Arvindbhai 24 4 Masri Arjan 25 5 Markhi Naga 26 6 Dr. Premchand Tarachand Nagda 27 7 Sajanbhai Alsibhai 32 8 Champaben Arvindbhai 34 9 Lakhman Dhana 35 10 Jusab Aamad 37 11 Dharmendra Bhagvanji 39 12 Pala Pitha 41 13 Bhuru Kana 42 14 Abbas Sidi 44 15 Arjan Aala 45 16 H.C., Tarsi Ajitsinh Chudasma 47 17 PSI, Majharbhai Fakirbhai Chaus 50 18 PSI, Sanshikant Chandulal Davae 56 3.2 The prosecution also relied on following documentary evidence: Sr. No. Description Exhibit/Mark No. 1 FIR Mark 50/1 2 Police Report 19 3 P.M. Note 20 4 Yadi 21 5 Report 22 6 X-ray Plates 28 & 29 7 Certificates 30 & 31 8 Panchnamas 33, 38, 40, 43, 46 9 Copy of Chapter Case No. 18/91 49 10 Report 51 11 Yadis 52, 53, 58, 59, 62 12 Station Diary 54 & 55 13 Certificate 61 14 Receipts 63 & 66 15 Letter 64 3.3 After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statements of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, giving rise to this appeal. 4. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms. C.M. Shah for the State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Nandish Thakkar with learned advocate Mr. Joshi as well as learned advocates Ms. Megha Jani and Mr. Kaivan K. Patel for respondents-accused. 5. Learned APP, Ms. Shah for the appellant, submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record. She has drawn our attention towards following injuries found on the body of the deceased as per column No. 17 of the post mortem report: Sr. No. Particulars 1 3cmx0.5cm scalp deep lacerated wound in transverse plane, 7cm above left ear. 2 5cmx1.5.cm abraded bruise present on top of right shoulder, 7cm to right of base of neck 3 5cmx1.5cm abraded bruise on right deltoid region, 5cm below tip of right shoulder. It is anteroposterioly situated. 4 6x4cm area right deltoid region 8cm below tip of right shoulder shows abraded bruise and one 1mm diameter skin deep punctured wound in it. 5 Anteroposterior, 5cmx3cm abraded bruise with a vertical 2x0.5cm skin deep lacerated wound in it near the posterior and is present on outer aspect of right elbow. 6 4cm diameter roughly circular area on anterolateral aspect of upper part of right forearm show abraded bruise. 7 5x2cm oblique abrasion on posterior part of upper third of right forearm 8 Back of medial three finger and back of right palm are showing abraded bruise along with 1mm diameter skin deep puncture wound on back of finger palm 9 Vertical 5cmx2cm abraded bruise with transverse 2cmx0.5cm skin deep lacerated wound present on back of right elbow. 7 5x2cm oblique abrasion on posterior part of upper third of right forearm 8 Back of medial three finger and back of right palm are showing abraded bruise along with 1mm diameter skin deep puncture wound on back of finger palm 9 Vertical 5cmx2cm abraded bruise with transverse 2cmx0.5cm skin deep lacerated wound present on back of right elbow. 10 Irregular abrasions present all over the back, on upper half of right hip and on posterolateral aspect of upper third of right thigh (15x10cm). 11 1.25cmx18cm long rail road bruise extending from right hip onto front of right thigh in downward and inward direction upto middle of right thigh. 12 1.25cmx10cm rail road bruise going downward and inward on anterolateral aspect of middle of right thigh 13 Transverse 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise on the middle part of posterolateral aspect of middle of right thigh. 14 Oblique 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise on back of lower 1/3 of right thigh 15 Oblique 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise with 1cmx0.5cm lacerated skin deep wound in its lower inner end present on middle third part of right leg. 16 Oblique 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise with 1cmx0.5cm lacerated skin deep wound in its lower inner end present just below and parallel to ext. inj. No. 15 17 Oblique 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise with 1cmx0.5cm lacerated skin deep wound in its lower inner end present just below and parallel to ext. inj. No. 16 18 1cmx0.5cm skin deep vertical lacerated wound with abraded margin present at the right tibial tuberosity. 19 1cmx0.5cm skin deep, oblique (upper inner end) lacerated abraded wound present on right leg, 4cm below and 2cm outer to ext. inj. No. 18 20 1cmx0.5cm skin deep oblique (upper end outer) lacerated wound with abraded margin present on right leg, 4cm below and 2cm inner (medial) to ext. inj. No. 18 21 Transverse 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise with lacerated skin deep 1cmx0.5cm wound at its inner end present at front of lower third of left leg. inj. No. 18 20 1cmx0.5cm skin deep oblique (upper end outer) lacerated wound with abraded margin present on right leg, 4cm below and 2cm inner (medial) to ext. inj. No. 18 21 Transverse 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise with lacerated skin deep 1cmx0.5cm wound at its inner end present at front of lower third of left leg. 22 Transverse 1.25cmx6cm rail road bruise with 1.00cmx0.5cm skin deep lacerated wound at its inner end present at front of upper 1/3 of left leg 23 Transverse 2cmx5cm long, rail road bruise at front of lower 1/3 of left thigh 24 Oblique (front end is lower) 1.75cmx15cm long rail road bruise present on lateral aspect of lower ½ of left thigh 25 2x10cm long rail road bruise almost vertically present on front of middle third of left thigh 26 2x5cm long rail road bruise present parallel and outer to ext. inj. No. 25 on middle third of left thigh 27 Vertical 2cmx11cm long rail road bruise present on front of upper part of left thigh extending upto left anterior superior iliac spine. 28 Oblique (outer end is upper) 1.25cmxscm long rail road bruise present on left part of chest near left axilla. 29 2cmx1cm lacerated bone deep wound with bruised surrounding skin present at back of left elbow 30 At back of upper 1/3 of left forearm, a vertical 2cmx0.5cm bone deep lacerated wound with surrounding bruise is present 31 A vertical 2cmx0.5cm bone deep lacerated wound with surrounding bruising present just below ext. inj. No. 30 32 At bake of middle third of left forearm, a bruised 1cmx0.5cm bone deep lacerated wound is present. 33 4cmx3cm bruised area present on medial surface of left wrist 34 Whole lateral and front aspect of left arm is bruised showing irregularly arranged six rail road bruises each 1.25cm broad and of lengths varying from 2cm (minimum) to 6cm (maximum) 35 7cmx5cm abrasion present on top of left shoulder She further submitted that cause of death has been stated to be shock on account of multiple injuries to the body caused by hard and blunt object. She, therefore, submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, there is no dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 5.1 As far as involvement of the accused in the crime in question is concerned, she took us through the evidence of P.W. Nos. She, therefore, submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, there is no dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 5.1 As far as involvement of the accused in the crime in question is concerned, she took us through the evidence of P.W. Nos. 2-complainant-Paresh Arvindbhai, P.W. No. 3-Maltiben Arvindbhai-injured sister of the deceased, P.W. Nos. 4-Masri Arjan, P.W. No. 5-Markhi Naga and P.W. No. 8-Champaben Arvindbhai mother of the deceased and submitted that prosecution has successfully proved the presence of all the accused along with their individual role in the crime in question and names of original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were clearly mentioned in the complaint by the complainant. She further submitted that place of incident is near the house of the deceased and there was previous chapter case filed against the accused. She also submitted that though almost all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in disbelieving their evidence and in acquitting the respondents-accused and therefore, it is requested that the appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. She relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors. reported in 2011 Cri.L.J. 2162. 6. Learned advocates for the respondents- original accused, on the other hand, submitted that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence appearing on record and the reasons assigned for recording a finding of acquittal are reasonable and justifiable. They further submitted that there are glaring and major contradictions and material improvements without any satisfactory explanation in the depositions of prosecution witnesses especially in the statements of mother and sister of the deceased. They further submitted that even the complainant could not see the place of second incident. They, therefore, submitted that as prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused were rightly acquitted by the trial court. They further submitted that this being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. They ultimately urged to dismiss this appeal. 7. They further submitted that this being an appeal against the order of acquittal, the judgment and order delivered by the trial Court deserves to be upheld as proper, as plausible reasons for acquittal have been recorded. They ultimately urged to dismiss this appeal. 7. It is required to be noted that the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of decisions. 7.1 In the case of Dilawar Singh and Others v. State of Haryana reported in (2015)1 SCC 737 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 36 and 37 as under: "36. The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record. 37. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the scope of power of appellate court dealing with an appeal against acquittal has been considered and this Court held as under: "42.....(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." Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. (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." Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602 ." 7.2 In the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court In para 16 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." 7.3 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 anke 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 anke 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 postmortem 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. 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." 7.4 Even in the case of Mookkiah 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. 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 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 ]" 7.5 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite 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." 7.6 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. 7.7 Thus, in case the appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower Court, then elaborate discussion of evidence or assigning fresh reasons are not necessary. 8. We have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties in light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions as well as the decision relied on by the learned APP, Ms. Shah. 9. Taking into account the medical evidence, we are accepting the contention of learned APP for the State that death of the deceased was homicidal. 10. It appears that there are serious improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses more particularly sister and mother of the deceased wherein they did not state the name of original accused Nos. 4 to 9 nor could they even recognize them. Further, the roles played by original accused Nos. 10. It appears that there are serious improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses more particularly sister and mother of the deceased wherein they did not state the name of original accused Nos. 4 to 9 nor could they even recognize them. Further, the roles played by original accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10 are not described by P.W. No. 2 in his evidence even though they were named by him in the complaint. Taking into consideration the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the trial court has held that evidence of complainant Pareshbhai and injured Maltiben who were injured with axe were not believable. The trial court has also not believed the evidence of Champaben, who was an eye witness to the incident. It was also held by the trial court that there was a change in the place of incident mentioned in the complaint by the complainant with that of his deposition. As regards injuries sustained by the injured, it was held by the trial court that there was a contradiction between the evidence of the complainant with that of medical evidence. It was also held by the trial court that other panch witnesses of inquest panchnama as well as panchnama of recovery of muddamal namely, Jusab Aamad at Exh.37, Dharmendra Bhagvan at Exh.39, Pala Pitha at Exh.41, Bhura Kana at Exh.42, Abbas Sidi at Exh.44, Arjan Aala at Exh.45 have also not supported the case of the prosecution. It was also held by the trial court that even if the evidence of investigating officer regarding recovery of muddamal is considered, nothing is forthcoming from the record to indicate that blood group of 'B' found on the muddamal article is that of the accused. Further, no blood group of any of the accused was taken and sent for FSL opinion by the investigating agency. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that blood found on the muddamal recovered is that of the blood group of the accused and therefore, said evidence is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. It was also held that although complainant Pareshbhai has given names of only accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the evidence, there is no other evidence on record to substantiate their involvement in the crime in question. It was also held that although complainant Pareshbhai has given names of only accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the evidence, there is no other evidence on record to substantiate their involvement in the crime in question. It was, therefore, held that it could not be proved by the prosecution that death of the deceased Arvindbhai and injuries to injured Pareshbhai and Maltiben were caused by the accused. Therefore, the trial court, on an elaborate discussion of the entire oral and documentary evidence in true perspective has acquitted the accused. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges levelled against them. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it in the said findings and therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the same. 11. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence to take a view contrary to the view taken by the trial court 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. 12. The appeal stands abated qua original accused No. 1 as he has expired. The impugned judgment and order dated 9-4-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1991 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Criminal Appeal accordingly stands abated. Record and proceedings shall be sent back forthwith to the trial court.