JUDGMENT : Sanjay Yadav, J. This appeal at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed against the Judgment dated 21/08/1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Chachoda, District Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 287/1998, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 450, 376, 306 and 323 IPC. 2. The allegations against respondent as per prosecution were that on 02/06/1997 when the complainant Ramsukhi Bai's (PW-2) husband had gone out to purchase Chaff and her son Narendra (PW-6) had gone to Binaganj to sell the Ox leaving behind complainant and her daughter Kari Bai (the deceased) at home. That at 5:00 PM the complainant had gone to attend cattle with fodder and water latched the house from outside. That when complainant came back she saw that the latch was open and the door was latched from inside; which was opened by Kari Bai who told the complainant that the respondent Babulal had outraged her modesty. When asked where he is, she told that he is hiding behind the Box-Bed. The complainant when tried to catch the accused he ran away giving push to her. The complainant went behind him, he dodged and went to attend the cattle. On complaining the matter to the family members, the accused got aggravated and gave one slap over the face of the complainant. The complainant came back home and saw her daughter Kari Bai hanging from the ceiling and despite the call for help since no one came, she brought down the body; and Narendra (PW-6) coming back from Binaganj was sent to fetch his father Mohan Singh (PW-3) from Bisadpur. That Mohan Singh, Ramdayal, Shrilal, Daulat Singh departed at night on 02/06/1997 for the Village Pareva, but because of rains they could reach Pareva in the morning whereafter Mohan Singh (PW-3) along with his wife Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2) came to P.S. Chachoda to lodge report (Ex-P/2) in morning at 8.30 AM. Merg (Ex-P.7) was recorded by the Town Inspector Surendra Kumar Paliwal (PW.8) under Sections 376, 450 and 306 IPC and after recording the Merg departed to Pareva, whereafter preparing to inquest (Ex P/8), Map (Ex P/9) sent the dead body of Kari Bai for post mortem and for MLC of the complainant Ramsukhi Bai. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. S.J. Baik (PW-5), who submitted the report (Ex-P/4). 3. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. S.J. Baik (PW-5), who submitted the report (Ex-P/4). 3. That after completing formalities and due investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 4. Respondent abjured the guilt. In defence he stated of being falsely implicated because of the property dispute between his father and the complainant Ramsukhi Bai and Mohan Singh (PW-3), who had been demanding Rs. 50,000/-. The respondent also produced the copy of order dated 27/07/1987 passed in Second Appeal No. 113/1987 between Kanhaiyalal Vs. Kishanlal and others. 5. The Trial Court after recording the statements and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the respondent from the charges. 6. Challenging the acquittal and the findings by the Trial Court, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the Trial Court committed an error by ignoring overwhelming evidence on record. It is urged that the cause of death and the offence of having ravished the modesty of the deceased as narrated by the complainant Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2) which got duly corroborated with the medical evidence (EX P.4) and the evidence of Dr. S.J. Baik (PW/5) who clearly opined that the deceased was raped, the trial Court erred in ignoring these vital evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 7. The respondent, however, supports the judgment. It is contended that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charges and since the evidence did not inspire any confidence, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the respondent. 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. The trial Court dwelt upon the following issues:- ^^¼1½ dkjhckbZ dh mez D;k Fkh\ ¼2½ D;k dkjhckbZ dh e`R;q vkRegR;kRed izd`fr dh Fkh\ ¼3½ D;k vfHk;qDr us dkjhckbZ ds lkFk cykRlax fd;k\ ¼4½ D;k vfHk;qDr us dkjhckbZ ds lkFk cykRlax dk vijk/k djus ds fy, mls dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls jkelq[khckbZ ds fuokl esa izos'k dj x`g vfrpkj fd;k\ ¼5½ D;k dkjhckbZ dks vkRegR;k fd, tkus ds fy, vfHk;qDr us vkRegR;k dk nq"izsj.k fd;k\ ¼6½ D;k vfHk;qDr us jkelq[khckbZ ds lkFk ekjihV dj mls LosPNk iwoZd pksaVs igqapkbZ\ ¼7½ ;fn vfHk;qDr us dksbZ vijk/k fd;k gS] rks og fdl n.M dk Hkkxh gS\ 10. As regard to the age of the deceased, the Trial Court on the basis of oral evidence of Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2), her husband Mohan Singh (PW-3), elder brother of deceased Narendra Singh (PW-6), Chowkidar Moolchand (PW-4), found that the deceased was born out of the earlier marriage of Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2) with Laxminarayan, who reportedly died 17-18 years ago, and that the deceased was two years younger to Narendra Singh (PW-6) whose age as per his evidence was 20 years as on 29.07.1998. The Trial Court further analyzed the evidence of Dr. S.J. Baik (PW-5) who conducted the post mortem and Dr. Laxminarayan Ojha (PW-1), wherein they opined on the basis of their examination of the deceased having pubic hair and the hair in arm-pits well grown which is possible between 16-17 years and 19-20 years. The trial Court on the basis of oral evidence and medical opinion, opined that the deceased was around 17 years and was not below 16 years. The findings arrived at by the trial Court is not shown to be perverse. No material evidence is commended at to doubt these findings. 11. As regard to the death of the deceased as to whether she committed suicide, the trial Court on the basis of the statement of Dr. S.J. Baik (PW-5), Inquest Report (Ex-D.3), Statement of Shrilal (PW-7), Mohan Singh (PW-3), Narendra (PW-6) and the statement of Surendra Kumar Paliwal, Investigating Officer (PW-8) observed prominent contradiction in the findings in the post mortem report as to ligature mark, non-mention thereof in the Inquest Report (Ex-D.3) and the admission of Dr. S.J. Baik (PW-5), the doctor who performed autopsy of not dissecting the body to find out the internal appearance of ligature mark. The statement of the doctor in paragraph 14, 15 and 16 makes this fact clear. The doctor, further in paragraph 18 admitted that he did not examine the carotid artery and the intima which disintegrated in case of death due to hanging. The doctor even admitted that he did not mention about saliva which continuously got discharged for about an hour after the death by hanging. This witness i.e. Dr. S.J. Baik (PW-5), as the trial Court found, admission in paragraph 19 of his deposition that unless fracture in cervical vertebra is coupled with the symptoms like flow of saliva, disintegration of intima, the death cannot be by hanging. This witness i.e. Dr. S.J. Baik (PW-5), as the trial Court found, admission in paragraph 19 of his deposition that unless fracture in cervical vertebra is coupled with the symptoms like flow of saliva, disintegration of intima, the death cannot be by hanging. These material evidence led the trial Court record a finding in paragraph 21, that the saliva was not found oozing out from the mouth of the deceased, nor were there any ligature marks noticed by the witnesses of the Inquest Report (Ex.D/3) and by the Investigating Officer, Surendra Kumar Paliwal (PW-8). Consequently, doubted the medical report as to the deceased dying due to hanging. As to the ocular evidence the trial Court found that none of the prosecution witnesses except Ramsukhi Bai, (PW-2) stated of they seeing any rope tied to the neck of the deceased. As to the statement by Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2), the manner in which she brought down the body which was allegedly hanging, the Trial Court found it to most unnatural, by analyzing the entire sequence in paragraph 33 of the judgment. Accordingly, it doubted the prosecution story as to deceased committing suicide. The trial Court in paragraph 36 did not rule out the possibility of Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2) of beating the deceased who was found in compromising situation with the accused. Be that as it may. The prosecution fails to cause any dent in the analysis and the findings arrived at by the trial Court as regard to that if failed to prove beyond doubt that the deceased died committing suicide. 12. As regard to charge of committing rape, the trial Court found material contradictions in the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. Evidently, Ex.P.4, the post mortem report recorded the following injuries in internal examination: “Internal Examination: Pubic hair were develop, bleeding from vaginal orifice-Bruising and laceration of the external genitals. Hymen Rupture-Laceration of the hymen posteriorly Margins are sharp-Vaginal wall – Laceration of outer aspect of vagina.” 13. The Dr. S.J. Baik (PW.5) was cross-examined extensively as regard to his taking note of and recording of “bleeding from vaginal orifice”. In paragraph 10 he admitted of the fact that if the said injuries were ante-mortem the blood would have clotted. Hymen Rupture-Laceration of the hymen posteriorly Margins are sharp-Vaginal wall – Laceration of outer aspect of vagina.” 13. The Dr. S.J. Baik (PW.5) was cross-examined extensively as regard to his taking note of and recording of “bleeding from vaginal orifice”. In paragraph 10 he admitted of the fact that if the said injuries were ante-mortem the blood would have clotted. However there was no explanation as regard to the un-clotted blood, which as per Trial Court created a doubt and a dent to the prosecution story of the accused committing rape. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and in particular the evidence of Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2) did not rule out the possibility of consensual intercourse. Be that as it may. The prosecution however, utterly failed to bring home the story of committing of rape by the accused. Even further the story of house trespass and causing hurt on the complainant Ramsukhi Bai (PW-2) has been found to be concocted as none of the prosecution witnesses inspired such a cause. 14. Trite it is that in case of acquittal, the Appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court are found to be just and proper. 15. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, 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, AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein it is held as under : “8. Criminal Appeal No. 147/2000 State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pulandar Singh & Ors. “.... This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi vs. 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. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in “Shivasharanappa & Ors. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in “Shivasharanappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka”, JT 2013 (7) SC 66 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2144 ) has held as under: “That appellate Court is empowered to re-appreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence.” 17. Even looking to the evidence on record, the learned Public Prosecutor is not able to bring home the charge levelled against the accused and fails to persuade us to take a different view than that taken by the learned trial Judge. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In the above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges levelled against him. We find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reason to interfere with the same. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the State is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 21.8.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in Sessions Trial No. 287/1998 is confirmed. 20. The respondent is on bail. His presence is no more Cr.A.No. 182/2000 (State of Madhya Padesh Vs. Babulal Meena) required before this Court and, therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the order be sent to the court below along with its record for information.