JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.9.2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer, F.T.C.No.2, Bhavnagar) Botad Camp in Special Atrocity Case No.39 of 2008. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 14.7.2008 while PW 6 and PW 7 infant girls had gone for answering call of nature, at that time, along with other two juvenile, the accused have chased them and were abusing, due to which, when the complainant and Karsanbhai rebuked them, at that time, they also assaulted them with wooden log and uttered derogatory words concerning caste and community of the complainant and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under sections 323, 294-A, 509 and 114 of IPC and section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (“the Act” for short). Ultimately, the complaint came to be lodged. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 5. At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 7. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 8. Ms. H.B. Punani, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 8. Ms. H.B. Punani, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and read over the evidence of the complainant victim and two girls who were eye witnesses to the incident and argued that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the eye witnesses and from their evidence the fact regarding assaulting the complainant and victim as well as utterance of derogatory words concerning the caste and community of the complainant came to be established, though learned trial Court recording the finding that evidence of them is suffering from major contradictions and improvement thereof and wrongfully given the benefit of doubt. She submitted that therefore learned trial Court has wrongly discarded the evidence on record and the impugned judgment of acquittal is required to be converted into conviction. 9. Though served, none appears for the respondents accused. 10. This Court has heard Ms. H.B. Punani, learned APP for the appellant State. 11. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. 12. PW 1 Vijay Ratnabhai Vaghela – complainant deposed that when all the four accused were abusing two girls, at that time, when the witness asked not to abuse them, the accused uttered derogatory words concerning the caste and community of the complainant and thereafter assaulted with wooden log. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that a mob of persons gathered at the place of incident and the accused assaulted by kick and fist blows. 13. PW 2 Karsanbhai Bhikhabhai has deposed that while he was passing through the place of incident, at that time, the accused were abusing the girls, due to which, the accused were rebuked, due to which, the accused uttered derogatory words concerning the caste and community and also assaulted with the wooden log. 14. PW 3 Giraben Palabhai Vaghela has deposed that while she had gone for answering call of nature, at that time, the accused chased her and were abusing. The witness has stated that Vijaybhai and Karsanbhai intercepted the accused and thereafter there was quarrel. 15. 14. PW 3 Giraben Palabhai Vaghela has deposed that while she had gone for answering call of nature, at that time, the accused chased her and were abusing. The witness has stated that Vijaybhai and Karsanbhai intercepted the accused and thereafter there was quarrel. 15. PW 6 Sachidanand Sitaram Prasad has deposed that on 14.7.2008, he was serving as Medical Officer with the Community Health Center, Paliyad. He examined Karsanbhai as well as Vijaybhai Ratnabhai. They have named the present accused and other two persons as assaulter. He admitted that no visible injury was found and they were treated as outdoor patients and he issued the certificate. 16. On overall analysis of the aforesaid evidence on record, indisputably, though Gitaben was eye witness to the incident, she has not deposed that the accused had uttered derogatory words concerning the caste and community of the complainant, but she has stated that there was quarrel as regards to chasing she as well as her friend. The medical evidence is not at all getting corroboration as regards to the deposition made by complainant Vijaybhai as well as witness Karsanbhai. The injury was not found to be inflicted through any wooden log and even visible injury was not found. Merely, tenderness was found on the person of the complainant and witness and they were treated as outdoor patients. Precisely, it appears that while Gitaben and her friend were going to answer call of nature in the outskirt of village, at that time, the present appellants and other two juvenile were following and chasing and there was some altercation due to which such sort of proceedings have been culminated thereof. Even otherwise also, neither witness Karsanbhai nor complainant Vijaybhai have specifically named as to have uttered derogatory words to whom. The omnibus allegations are levelled which have not been believed by learned trial Court. 17. Learned trial Court, while answering the points of determination, has elaborately dealt with the evidence of each one of the witnesses and recorded the finding on each one of the points. This Court concurs with the findings recorded thereon. There appears no point to take any different view than the view taken by learned trial Court. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 18. This Court concurs with the findings recorded thereon. There appears no point to take any different view than the view taken by learned trial Court. Under the circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents accused considering the nature of evidence on record. 18. 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 reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 19. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 20. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.