JUDGMENT : Hemant M. Prachchhak, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31/08/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Sessions Case No.70 of 2007, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”), Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Panchayat Act . 1.1 At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No.1 – Bharatbhai Ishwarbhai Rathod (original accused No.1), having expired pending the appeal, the appeal stands abated qua the said respondent No.1. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, the complainant Sirajbhai Alibhai Patel lodged complaint before Vagra Police Station against the accused persons for the offences punishable Under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Panchayat Act. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09/04/2006, in the afternoon, accused no.1 Bharat Ishwarbhai Rathod left his cattles into the farm of the complainant for grazing and caused damage to Cotton-crop. Therefore, the complainant went to accused no.1 and asked him to take back his cattles and pursuant to that, accused no.1 got provoked, inflicted stick blows on the legs of the complainant and also abused the complainant by using filthy language. Thereafter, accused no.2, father of the accused no.1 and accused no.3, mother of the accused no.1, came there and they all inflicted fist blows on the complainant. 2.1 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the respondents-accused persons, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vagra. 2.1 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the respondents-accused persons, charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vagra. As the offences committed by the accused persons were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Bharuch, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.70 of 2007. Thereafter, charge was framed against them for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Sections 3 and 5 of the Panchayat Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore, led evidence. The Prosecution had examined 9 witnesses as well as produced 8 documentary evidences on the record of the case, which are as under : Oral Evidence : Witnesses regarding the complaint:- Sr. No. Witness No. Name of the Witness Particulars Exhibit 01 01 Siraj Alibhai Patel Complainant himself 10 02 02 Mustaq Ahmed Patel Eyewitness 12 03 05 Jaymalbhai Manorbhai Rathod Eyewitness 19 04 06 Dhaniben Ambubhai Rathod Eyewitness 20 Medical Evidence:- Sr.No. Witness No. Name of the Witness Particulars Exhibit 05 03 Dr. Pravinkumar Shriramnandan Sinh Medical Officer who examined the Injured 14 Other Witnesses:- Sr.No. Witness No. Name of the Witness Particulars Exhibit 06 04 Kalpeshkumar Prajivandas Modi Clerk of Collector Office 17 07 07 Mohamad Adambhai Muse Member of Masjid’s Administrative Committee 21 Police Witnesses:- Sr.No. Witness No. Name of the Witness Particulars Exhibit 08 08 Ganpatbhai Kabhaibhai PSO of Vagra Police Station 22 09 09 Chandravadanbhai L. Patel Investigating Officer 26 Documentary Evidence : Sr.No. Particulars of the Document Exhibit 01 Original complaint of Sirajbhai Alibhai 11 02 Medical Certificate regarding injury sustained by Complainant Sirajbhai 15 03 Case papers regarding treatment given to Complainant Sirajbhai 16 04 Notification of the Additional Collector, Bharuch. 18 05 Photocopy of the entry made on page no. 96 of the Station Diary of Vagra Police Station. 23 06 Panchnama of the place of offense. 24 07 Panchnama regarding arrest of the accused persons. 18 05 Photocopy of the entry made on page no. 96 of the Station Diary of Vagra Police Station. 23 06 Panchnama of the place of offense. 24 07 Panchnama regarding arrest of the accused persons. 25 08 Letter of deputing the inquiry to PSI. 27 2.2 At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court acquitted all the accused persons from the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 31/08/2007. 2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.V.C. Vaghela, appearing on behalf of the respondents – original accused. 4. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case by examining the witnesses and producing relevant documents before the trial court, the trial court has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence in its true and proper spirit and thus, the trial court has committed a serious error of law by passing the Impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has further submitted that the PW-1, being the complainant, who had received injury in the scuffle, which was witnessed by the PW- 2, being cousin brother of the complainant and the eye witness to the incident and other independent eye witnesses i.e. PW-5 and PW-6, who had posed themselves as eye witnesses and deposed before the trial court, however, the trial court has not appreciated the evidence of those witnesses while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and thereby, the trial court has committed a serious error of law and on facts. He has further submitted that the PW-3 – Dr.Pravinkumar Shriramnandan Sinh, who had examined the complainant for the injuries sustained by him, has not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the trial court ought to have appreciated that the prosecution has established the case by leading medical evidence vis-a-vis the oral evidence before the trial court by examining independent witnesses, which fact is completely overlooked by the trial court. It was further submitted by the learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt that there was inter-se rivalry between the complainant and the respondents accused due to political differences as they were from different groups and therefore, under such circumstances, the trial court ought to have appreciated this fact in its true and proper spirit while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has therefore, urged that the trial court has committed a serious error of law and on fact both and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court be quashed and set aside and the present appeal be allowed. 5. As against that, learned advocate Mr.V.C. Vaghela, appearing on behalf of the respondents accused has submitted that in fact, it was the accused No.1 who received serious injuries and had also filed cross complaint against the present appellant – original complainant and to save his own skin, the appellant complainant has filed the present complainant against the respondents accused, wherein, the respondent accused Nos.2 and 3 being the parents of the deceased accused No.1 were apparently falsely robed in the alleged offence by the prosecution. He has submitted that in fact, by way of leading oral as well as documentary evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the present respondents accused and therefore, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has further submitted that it was the specific case of the prosecution that the deceased accused No.1 who was alleged to have inflicted stick blows on the legs of the complainant, however, from the cross-examination of the complainant, no injury was found on the body of the complainant through stick or even the injury with regard to kick and fist blows were also not found as alleged by the complainant in the complaint and therefore, to save his own skin, the complainant has completely got-up a false case against the present respondents accused and therefore, the trial court has rightly disbelieved and discarded the evidence led by the prosecution. He has further submitted that there is no material produced on record by the prosecution to show involvement of the present respondents accused in the alleged incident of crime in question and there is no evidence worth the name led by the prosecution to prove the case against the present respondent accused. He has also submitted that while examining an appeal against acquittal while exercising powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court can certainly re-appreciate the evidence, review or re-consider the evidence and if ultimately, the Appellate Court finds that there is any illegality or any irregularity in the judgment, the Appellate Court can certainly exercise powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. but, herein the present case, no cogent and material evidence has come on record and even the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution does not support each other. He has further submitted that even the medical evidence is completely contrary to the facts and circumstances and therefore, under such circumstances, the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Learned advocate Mr.Vaghela has therefore, urged that no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the present appeal be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial court and also gone through the evidence of the witnesses led by the prosecution in detail and I have also examined their depositions. The fact reveals that the incident in question took place on 09/04/2006 as alleged by the complainant and when the complainant asked the accused No.1 to remove his cattles from the agricultural field of the complainant and in a spur of moment the alleged incident took place and the manner in which it was described by the complainant, the same was not supported by the evidence of the medical officer and even by the independent witnesses who were declared hostile. Even from the cross-examination, nothing culled out from their evidence. The evidence of PW-1 being the complainant and PW-2 being the cousin brother of the complainant, was not supported by the independent witnesses namely PW-5 and PW- 6, who were declared hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even from the cross-examination, nothing culled out from their evidence. The evidence of PW-1 being the complainant and PW-2 being the cousin brother of the complainant, was not supported by the independent witnesses namely PW-5 and PW- 6, who were declared hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even there was no injury found on the body of the complainant as alleged by the complainant in the FIR and even the history given before the doctor, wherein, there is no mention of stick injury and he has referred the details with regard to kick and fist blows, in fact, no injury to that effect was found on the body of the complainant and therefore, it seems that the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence of all the concerned witnesses while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. There is no any irregularity or any illegality committed by the trial court. 6.1 The learned trial Judge has considered all the relevant material produced by the prosecution and after going through the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order acquitting the present respondents accused. It is also now well settled that while exercising powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., if the trial court while passing the order has committed any illegality or any perversity or has exceeded the jurisdiction, unless and until such facts come on record, the Court is very slow while dealing with an acquittal appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a series of judgments enunciated the principles while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378 against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is inasmuch as re-appreciate the evidence, view or re-consider the evidence and if the Court finds that there is any illegality or any irregularity in the judgment then in that case only, the Court has power to entertain the appeal and interfere with the order of acquittal. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraphs 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraphs 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court. 6.2 It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras – 37 to 40 as under:- “37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: - "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] "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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 curtail 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise 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." 38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: - "8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 39. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 7. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31/08/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.3, Bharuch in Sessions Case No.70 of 2007 is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents accused stand cancelled. 7.1 Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.