JUDGMENT : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. The State of Gujarat, through Public Prosecutor has filed the present Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) against the judgment and order dated 18.08.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 184/1992, whereby the respondents herein-accused have been acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as under. 2.1 That, the complainant Mavsangbhai Mohanbhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as the “complainant”) who is resident of village Mosam, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch lodged an FIR being I-CR No. 10/1992 with Vagra Police Station and alleged that on 19.01.1992 at around 7.30 pm in the area called Navinagri, in an incident one Laxmanbhai Lalabhai Vasava was attacked by some of the respondents herein pursuant to which said Laxmanbhai sustained serious injuries. When the complainant came to know about the assault, he inquired in the area and found all the accused present at the scene of offence. The injured was thereafter taken by the complainant in a tractor in injured condition and in the said tractor Naginbhai son of injured, Dhaniben wife of injured, Mangubhai Gordhanbhai, Alibhai Ahmedbhai, Melabhai Jethabhai, Sureshbhai Prabhat and Raijibhai Govindbhai also accompanied. That, the tractor was of the ownership of Mangubhai Gordhanbhai and it was being driven by Raijibhai Govindbhai and they left village Mosam at around 8.30 to 8.45 pm to reach Vagra Primary Health Centre. That, the son of injured Laxmanbhai Lalabhai and all others reached Vagra Police Station where Naginbhai S/o Naginbhai Laxmanbhai lodged an FIR and thereafter the injured was shifted to Primary Health Centre of Vagra where the doctor examined the injured and having found serious injuries, Laxmanbhai Lalabhai was shifted to Civil Hospital. That, the complainant did not come to Bharuch Civil Hospital, however other persons traveled in a jeep from Vagra to Bharuch. 2.2 That, the distance between villages Mosam and Vagra is around 3 km. That, when the complainant alongwith Alibhai Ahmedbhai, Melabhai Jethabhai, Sureshbhai Prabhat, Raijibhai Govindbhai etc. That, the complainant did not come to Bharuch Civil Hospital, however other persons traveled in a jeep from Vagra to Bharuch. 2.2 That, the distance between villages Mosam and Vagra is around 3 km. That, when the complainant alongwith Alibhai Ahmedbhai, Melabhai Jethabhai, Sureshbhai Prabhat, Raijibhai Govindbhai etc. were returning in the said tractor at around 10.30 pm on the same day i.e. 19.01.1992 and when they were traveling on a kachchha road, they found all the respondents herein-accused having deadly weapons in their hands near a field belonged to Bhailalbhai Babubhai. It was further alleged in the FIR by the complainant that since the injured was shifted by all the persons who had traveled in the tractor, all the accused inquired and abused as to how they are related to the injured and why they shifted injured Laxmanbhai Lalabhai to hospital and attacked all the persons by deadly weapons. It was alleged that Jaisinghbhai Bhaijibhai gave dhariya blow on the head and hand of Raijibhai Govindbhai, who was driving the tractor and thereafter all the accused encircled Mangubhai Gordhanbhai and gave indiscriminate blows of axe, stick and dhariya pursuant to which said Mangubhai Gordhanbhai sustained injuries on head as well as in person. The complainant also received an injury on his last finger of his left hand. The complainant saw all the accused at around 11 to 11.45 pm in the light of tractor and thereafter he immediately went to Vagra Police Station and lodged the FIR being I-CR No. 10/1992 for the aforesaid offences. 2.3 That, pursuant to the lodging of FIR, investigation was carried out and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the respondents accused and the same was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bharuch. The Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case, under Section 209 of the Code committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bharuch which was numbered as Sessions Case No. 184/1992. 2.4 Charge Exh.19 came to be framed against the respondents herein-accused on 04.01.1995 for the aforesaid offences which were denied by the respondents-accused and therefore, the trial proceeded in accordance with law. 2.4 Charge Exh.19 came to be framed against the respondents herein-accused on 04.01.1995 for the aforesaid offences which were denied by the respondents-accused and therefore, the trial proceeded in accordance with law. 2.5 That, the prosecution examined in all 19 witnesses including the complainant, injured witnesses, Medical Officers, Investigating Officers, Panch witnesses as well as Naginbhai Laxmanbhai Lalabhai, who had lodged the FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992 with Vagra Police Station against some of the accused. 2.6 The accused did not examine any witnesses in their defence. 2.7 That, the trial Court by the impugned judgment and order, after recording the reasons in detail, acquitted all the accused for the charges leveled against them. Hence, the present appeal. 3. That, the appeal came to be admitted on 09.10.1996 and in response to the Bailable Warrants issued to the respondents herein-accused, the respondents herein-accused have appeared through learned advocate Mr. Mrudul Barot, who has been appointed by the High Court Legal Services Authority to defend their case. 4. Learned APP Mr. D.M. Devnani appearing for the appellant-State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that the trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting all the respondents accused though the prosecution was successful in establishing the accusations leveled against the respondents herein-accused and that too by examining eyewitnesses who had sustained injuries in the crime. 4.1 He would further submit that unnecessary weightage has been given by the trial Court in minor discrepancies in the deposition of witnesses. He would submit that the trial Court has committed an error in not believing the Medical Officer who had specifically deposed before the Court that he had examined four injured witnesses including the complainant though there is no injury certificate issued by him qua the complainant. 4.2 By taking me through the deposition of complainant viz. Mavsangbhai Mohanbhai (PW-3, Exh.49), he would submit that the complainant is permanent resident of village Mosam and the accused persons are also residents of the same village and therefore, the complainant as well as accused side know each other very well. He would submit that the first incident had taken place at around 7.30 pm wherein Vikram Lavgahn, Vasant Lavgahn and Arvind Lavgahn (some of the respondents herein) had attacked Laxmanbhai Lalabhai in connection with the alleged encroachment by Laxmanbhai Lalabhai who had kept certain articles on the road side. He would submit that the first incident had taken place at around 7.30 pm wherein Vikram Lavgahn, Vasant Lavgahn and Arvind Lavgahn (some of the respondents herein) had attacked Laxmanbhai Lalabhai in connection with the alleged encroachment by Laxmanbhai Lalabhai who had kept certain articles on the road side. He would submit that when the said Laxmanbhai Lalabhai was seriously injured, the complainant alongwith other witnesses viz. Naginbhai son of Laxmanbhai Lalabhai and wife of Naginbhai traveled in a tractor to the nearest hospital at village Vagra where deceased Mangubhai Gordhanbhai, injured Melabhai Jethabhai and injured Raijibhai Govindbhai had traveled. He would submit that subsequent to shifting of injured Laxmanbhai Lalabhai to Bharuch Civil Hospital, all these witnesses were traveling in a tractor belonged to deceased Mangubhai Gordhanbhai, which was being driven by Raijibhai and at that time at around 11.30 pm on kachchha road, all these accused persons having deadly weapons like dhariya, axe, sticks etc. were waiting to attack them. He would submit that this witness has minutely described the incident in his deposition, which has been supported by the injured witnesses viz. Melabhai Jethabhai (PW-4, Exh.51) and Alibhai Ahmedbhai (PW-7, Exh.66) and Raijibhai Govindbhai (PW-8, Exh.68) in their respective depositions. Though this witness has been exhaustively cross-examined by the accused side, the accused side have failed to cull out any facts which are contrary to the circumstances which the prosecution was able to establish by producing several documents. He would submit that the trial Court ought not to have discarded the deposition of this witness only on the ground that though he has stated that he had visited Vagra Primary Health Centre, no injury certificate is produced. He would submit that the distance between Vagra and village Mosam is only 3 km and within short period of 2 to 3 hours, two incidents have taken place in a remote and backward area of a village for which two different FIRs have been registered, it is not expected from the witness whether to believe him or not only on the ground that he has not assured that on what time his statement was recorded with regard to the first incident. 4.3 By taking me through the injured eyewitness viz. 4.3 By taking me through the injured eyewitness viz. Melabhai Jethabhai (PW-4, Exh.51), he would submit that he has described the evidence and has categorically stated that one of the accused Vikram Lavgahn Vasava had given a blow on his head by Dang (stick). In support of his statement the prosecution did produce the medical certificate (Exh.46) which suggests that he has sustained injury on right frontal region of his head. He, therefore, would submit that trial Court has committed error in discarding his evidence that too when this witness is an injured eyewitness. Minor contradictions or improvements in his deposition would not be fatal to the prosecution case. 4.4 By taking me through the deposition of another injured witness viz. Alibhai Ahmedbhai (PW-7, Exh.66), he would submit that he was also attacked by all these accused persons pursuant to which he sustained injuries and for which treatment was provided to him at Vagra Hospital for which medical certificate (Exh.44) is produced and proved by the prosecution. Similar is the say of another injured eyewitness viz. Raijibhai Govindbhai (PW-8, Exh.68) who was driving the tractor and was attacked first amongst the injured whose injury is also proved by prosecution by producing injury certificate (Exh.45). He, therefore, would submit that in such circumstances the trial Court ought to have believed these witnesses and ought not to have acquitted the accused persons. He would submit that when direct evidence in nature of deposition of eyewitnesses is available, the Court can convict the accused, however he would submit that apart from direct evidence in nature of deposition eyewitnesses, the prosecution was able to establish that the weapon which have been discovered at the instance of some of the accused were sent for serological report which suggests that the weapons which were discovered and the clothes of the accused are found with blood stains of ‘B’ group, which is similar to the blood found from the soil where the blood of deceased was found and collected from the place of offence. 4.5 By taking me through the discovery panchnama Exh.83, he would submit that the blood found on the weapons which were discovered at the instance of two of the accused viz. 4.5 By taking me through the discovery panchnama Exh.83, he would submit that the blood found on the weapons which were discovered at the instance of two of the accused viz. Vikram Lavgahn Vasava and Jivan Manilal Vasava, were sent for FSL, is having blood of ‘B’ group and blood stains which were found from the clothes of deceased are of same group i.e. ‘B’ group and therefore, in addition to direct evidence there is corroborative evidence produced and proved by the prosecution. 4.6 By taking me through the deposition of Medical Officer Dr. Ajaykumar Prasad Singh (PW-1, Exh.37), who has carried out the postmortem and had prepared the notes, he would submit that the deceased had sustained in all 16 injuries and found 6 internal injuries which resulted into death of Mangubhai Gordhanbhai. He would submit that Medical Officer has categorically stated that these injuries are possible by the weapons used in the crime. He would submit that Dr. Joseph Samuel Khristi (PW-2, Exh.42), who was working Bharuch Civil Hospital, had categorically stated that he had examined Alibhai Ahmedbhai, one of the injured eyewitness and therefore, the prosecution was successful in bringing home the charge against all the accused. Therefore, he would submit that the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the respondents accused. 4.7 He would submit that the trial Court has given undue advantage of the deposition of a witness viz. Dr. Narayanbhai Motibhai Patel (PW-6, Exh.63), who had given initial treatment on the ground that he has made corrections with regard to the name of the treatment given by him at Vagra Primary Health Centre in absence of main Medical Officer since he is not having the degree of MBBS. He would submit that he had clarified by submitting an application (Exh.65) that how injured were examined by him by referring their names including the complainant. 4.8 By taking me through the deposition of Investigating Officer viz. Bismillahkhan Jabaazkhan Pathan (PW-19, Exh.105), he would submit that the said Investigating Officer was in charge of the investigation of FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992 and present offence i.e. FIR being I-CR No. 10/1992 which were registered at Vagra Police Station simultaneously and therefore, not recording the statement with regard to FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992 before investigating the present case, would not be fatal to the case of prosecution. He would further submit that even if there is a mere procedural lapse on the part of Investigating Officer, the same would not be fatal to the case of prosecution in view of the evidence in the nature which were produced by the prosecution as stated herein above. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Mrudul Barot appearing for the respondents herein-accused has vehemently opposed the present appeal and would submit that the trial Court by a detailed and reasoned order after scrutinizing each aspect of the crime has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that the instruction of the crime in question itself is doubtful in view of the fact that Mavsangbhai Mohanbhai (PW-3, Exh.49), who posed himself as complainant and has witnessed the incident has never got examined himself about the socalled injury sustained by him in the crime. 5.1 By taking me through the evidence of Mavsangbhai Mohanbhai and more particularly the cross-examination, he would submit that he has admitted that he immediately ran to Vagra Police Station and lodged the FIR. However, it appears from his own deposition as well as from the record that he waited at police station for 1½ hour and his FIR came to be lodged between 1 to 1.15 am on 20.01.1992. The said witness has admitted that he was given a police yadi (Exh.32) by which he was asked to visit the Primary Health Centre of Vagra, however he has never visited the medical officer. He would submit that neither any medical certificate nor original yadi (Exh.32) has come on record which created doubt about the occurrence of the crime in the manner in which it is alleged. In continuation of his submission he would submit that Dr. Narayanbhai Motibhai Patel (PW-6, Exh.63) has admitted in his deposition that some corrections had been made in the refer note (Exh.64) wherein name of Laxmanbhai Lalabhai (injured of FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992) came to be deleted and name of Melabhai Jethabhai has been added in some margin area between two names, however there is no name referred at all of the complainant Mavsangbhai. He would submit that by clarifying the name of Mavsangbhai by an application Exh.65 would not lead anywhere particularly in absence of any other document which can suggest that the complainant had ever visited Vagra Primary Health Centre. He, therefore, would submit that the presence of complainant itself is doubtful and more particularly when the complainant claimed that he had sustained injuries and had seen the incident and that too in absence of any other supporting document. He would submit that all the witnesses who claimed of having witnessed the incident have stated on the same line. However, the conduct and injuries sustained by the witnesses create doubt in view of the deposition of Dr. Narayanbhai Patel who has categorically stated that he examined four witnesses on 19.01.1992 at around 9 to 9.15 pm. He would submit that when alleged incident even as per the case of prosecution took place at around 11 to 11.15 pm, there was no reason for all the injured witnesses to visit Vagra Primary Health Centre at about 9 to 9.15 pm. Therefore, he would submit that to protect the real culprits, the present respondents herein were arraigned as accused in the crime. 5.2 By taking me through the deposition of Investigating Officer viz. Bismillahkhan Jabaazkhan Pathan (PW-19, Exh.105), he would submit that the said witness has admitted in his cross-examination that he was carrying on investigation of FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992 as well as FIR being I-CR No. 10/1992 simultaneously, however has further admitted that before he got the orders for investigation of FIR being I-CR No. 10/1992, he had never recorded the statement of witnesses in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992 in which Laxmanbhai Lalabhai had sustained injuries and the said FIR came to be lodged prior in point of time. He would submit that all the statements have been recorded in such a manner that the real culprits were made free and those accused who allegedly attacked Laxmanbai Lalabhai at around 7.30 pm as well as the relatives and friends are arraigned as accused in the present case. He would submit that all the statements have been recorded in such a manner that the real culprits were made free and those accused who allegedly attacked Laxmanbai Lalabhai at around 7.30 pm as well as the relatives and friends are arraigned as accused in the present case. He would submit that the trial Court has rightly observed that though time and again prosecution was instructed to produce the relevant documents with regard to FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992, same were not produced by the prosecution and ultimately the Court had to pass an order to produce all the charge-sheet papers in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992. 5.3 By taking me through Exh.124 i.e. charge-sheet submitted in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992, he would submit that the said offence has been registered for the offence under Section 326 etc. of the IPC wherein deceased Mangubhai Gordhanbhai has been referred to as witness No. 10, which could not have been possible since said Mangubhai Gordhanbhai had lost his life in an incident which is alleged to have taken place at around 11 pm. Therefore, this creates doubt about the conduct of the Investigating Officer who was in-charge of both the offences. 5.4 He would further submit that the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has admitted that the weapons which are allegedly discovered in the present crime are also shown as muddamal articles in FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992 wherein Laxmanbhai Lalabhai was allegedly attacked. He would submit that therefore both the weapons, which are discovered, have been allegedly used in both the crimes in which two different persons had sustained serious injuries and one had succumbed to the same. He would submit that neither the serological report with regard to injured Laxmanbhai Lalabhai (injured of FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992) has been produced and therefore, trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the blood group of Laxmanbhai Lalabhai who had also sustained injuries by the said weapon and therefore, the trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused. 5.5 Apart from his above submissions, learned advocate Mr. 5.5 Apart from his above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Barot would submit that the manner and method in which the alleged incident has taken place, when the witnesses have admitted that the tractor dashed with a tree and when the injured were attacked, however the panchnama of scene of offence did not disclose any blood stains in the said area, however at a distance of 90 feet, blood stains having group ‘B’ is found and therefore, the trial Court has rightly held about the place of occurrence of offence and has given benefit of doubt to the accused. Learned advocate Mr. Mrudul Barot appearing for the respondents accused has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muralidhar alias Gidda and Another vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 2200 and would submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down principles to be kept in mind while dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal. He, therefore, would submit that the appeals be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties and gone through the record and proceedings and scrutinized oral evidence of witnesses and postmortem note, panchnama etc. Since the case of prosecution is mainly based on depositions of eyewitnesses, a detailed scrutiny was carried out and say of all the witnesses were examined keeping in mind the time of incident, place of incident, conduct of injured complainant and injured witnesses and the medical evidence as well as the deposition of Investigating Officer and his method of carrying out the investigation. 6.1 It is an undisputed fact that the FIR in question came to be registered at the instance of Mavsangbhai Mohanbhai (PW-3, Exh.49), who claimed that he had sustained the injury on his finger and he was asked to have treatment from government hospital. It is pertinent to note that the distance between Vagra Police Station and Vagra Primary Health Centre is around 100 to 150 meter as stated by the Investigating Officer and therefore, there was no reason for Mavsangbhai to visit Primary Health Centre though a yadi was handed over to him. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has failed to produce original yadi (Exh.32) on the record of the case. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has failed to produce original yadi (Exh.32) on the record of the case. In his cross-examination he has admitted certain aspects which have been improved before the Court like visiting Vagra Police Station as well as Primary Health Centre where injured Laxmanbhai Lalabhai was initially treated. Even when the dead body was received at the Primary Health Centre at about 4 O’ Clock, he was present in the Primary Health Centre. Though he says that he had taken treatment, however there is no medical certificate produced on record. In connection with the say of the complainant, if we peruse the deposition of Dr. Narayanbhai Motibhai Patel (PW-6, Exh.63), who has given immediate treatment at Vagra Primary Health Centre, it appears that he had stated that on 19.01.1992 at around 9.30 pm, one Raijibhai was brought by his relatives and thereafter, after 10 to 15 minutes, 4 injured persons were brought at the Primary Health Centre where he had given primary treatment and referred the case to Civil Hospital, Bharuch. If Exh.64 which is a Refer Note is perused, it appears that two names viz. Alibhai Ahmedbhai-one of the injured witness and Laxmanbhai Lalabhai were initially written, however name of Lalabhai at S. No. 2 is deleted and subsequently, name of one Raijibhai Govindbhai at S. No. 3 is mentioned and another person viz. Melabhai Jethabhai is referred, wherein no name of complainant Mavsangbhai Mohanbhai has been referred to. In view of the above fact and as the said aspect about the correction in the Refer Note has been admitted by the witness, the trial Court has rightly dealt with the same against the case of prosecution. In view of the above fact, if the statements of injured witnesses are perused, they are on the same line as that of the complainant Mavsangbhai Mohanbhai. The prosecution has not come forward with clarity about the time and place of incidents since as per the prosecution and its witnesses the incident had taken place at 11.30 pm whereas the doctor has examined the injured witnesses at around 9 to 9.30 pm that too, two hours prior to the incident in question. The prosecution has not come forward with clarity about the time and place of incidents since as per the prosecution and its witnesses the incident had taken place at 11.30 pm whereas the doctor has examined the injured witnesses at around 9 to 9.30 pm that too, two hours prior to the incident in question. Therefore, it has been held by catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that once the Court arrived at the conclusion that there are doubts about genuineness of FIR and the prosecution case, there is no need for further inquiry when the assertions made by the prosecution are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 6.2 We are, therefore, of the opinion that the complainant side has not stated the correct facts before the Court and has rightly been dealt with by the trial Court. Apart from this aspect, when the Investigating Officer who was in-charge of both the offences and was investigating the case, has categorically admitted that till he was given of the second offence, which is under consideration, he had not recorded any statement of any witnesses with regard to another C.R. in which Laxmanbhai Lalabhai had received injuries. It is also pertinent to note that the trial Court has rightly observed that though time and again prosecution was instructed to produce the relevant documents with regard to FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992, same were not produced by the prosecution and ultimately the Court had to pass an order to produce all the charge-sheet papers in connection with FIR being I-CR No. 9/1992. It has come on record by Exh.124 that deceased Mangubhai Gordhanbhai has been shown as Witness No. 10. We fail to understand as to how a person who had lost his life on 19.01.1992 itself was shown as witness in the crime, whose statement is alleged to have been recorded subsequent to the lodging of FIR being I-CR No. 10/1992, which was even filed after few hours of the crime. The trial Court has rightly discussed various aspects about the description of the weapons etc. however we would not like to deal with in detail when we are in concurrence of the findings of the trial Court with regard to the genuineness of the FIR and the case of prosecution. The trial Court has rightly discussed various aspects about the description of the weapons etc. however we would not like to deal with in detail when we are in concurrence of the findings of the trial Court with regard to the genuineness of the FIR and the case of prosecution. 6.3 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 Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala and Another, (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 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.” 6.4 Further, in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 the Hon’ble 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. (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.” 6.5 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. 6.6 Even in a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another, (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para-16 of the said decision the Hon’ble Apex 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. 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.” 6.7 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Veer Singh and Others, 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. vs. State of M.P. 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 6.8 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 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Hemareddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: “.....This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi vs. 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.” 6.9 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. 6.10 Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Muralidhar alias Gidda and Another (supra) conjointly with the facts of the case on hand, in our opinion the said decision would be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 12 of the said decision has observed as follows: “12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu, Madan Mohan Singh, Atley, Aher Raja Khima, Balbir Singh, M.G. Agarwal, Noor Khan, Khedu Mohton, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, Lekha Yadav, Khem Karan, Bishan Singh, Umedbhai Jadavbhai, K. Gopal Reddy, Tota Singh, Ram Kumar, Madan Lal, Sambasivan, Bhagwan Singh, Harijana Thirupala, C. Antony, K. Gopalakrishna, Sanjay Thakran and Chandrappa. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal. (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified. (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and reevaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and reevaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.” 6.11 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. Even otherwise, It is well settled principle of law that the appellate Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal unless the Court finds it contrary to evidence or palpably erroneous or the view which has been taken by the Trial Court, could not have been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction while dealing with the appeal against acquittal, the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, has been fortified for its acquittal. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and may not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice where interference is imperative and the ends of justice was required and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience. Hence, the trial Court having committed no error in acquitting the respondents accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, it does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.1994 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 184/1992 is confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Registry to return the R&P, if any, to the trial Court forthwith.