JUDGMENT : SAMIR J. DAVE, J. 1. This Appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 17.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2019. By the impugned judgment and order, the respondent-original accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief are as under: 2.1 That complainant (deceased) viz. Rameshbhai @ Anilbhai Maganbhai Vaghela is residing at Joravarnagar, Surendranagar with his family. On 06.11.2018, the complainant went to toilet at the back of his house. At that time, accused person come near the complainant and said that why did you use filthy words regarding Chamar caste girls. Thereafter, the complainant replied to accused person that he had not said anything about girls of Chamar caste. Hence, the accused persons abused the complainant and thereafter, the accused have inflicted knife blows on the waist and right side shoulder of the complainant and ran away from the place of incident. Thereafter, complainant shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Surendranagar for primary treatment through 108 ambulance and thereafter, he was sifted to C.U. Shah Medical College and Hospital at Surendranagar for treatment. Thereafter for further treatment the complainant was shifted to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint against the present accused person with Joravar Police Station, which was registered as I-C.R. No. 98/2018, for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(2), 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. The complaint was registered and investigation was conducted, Panchnama was drawn, statements of the witnesses were recorded and upon completion of the investigation as sufficient evidence to link the accused with crime was revealed, the accused person was charged-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 2.2 Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court the same was committed to the learned Sessions, Surendranagar Court under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 19 of 2019. The trial was initiated against the respondent-accused. 2.3 To prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined the witnesses mentioned in the impugned order. Similarly, in order to support the case the prosecution, the prosecution has produced the documents mentioned in the aforesaid judgment. The trial was initiated against the respondent-accused. 2.3 To prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined the witnesses mentioned in the impugned order. Similarly, in order to support the case the prosecution, the prosecution has produced the documents mentioned in the aforesaid judgment. 2.4 At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Addional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order dated 17.06.2023. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 3. Ms. Krina Calla, learned APP submitted that the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge is against the provisions of law; the Additional Sessions Judge has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She submitted that PW-17 Dr. Bhiaraviben Dipakbhai Joshi, who was examined at Exh.50, who has conducted postmortem of the deceased. She has specifically mentioned that the case of death due to cardiorespiratory arrest due to abdominal injury and its complication. PW-26 Vajesinh Vashrambhai Rathod, who was examined at Exh.69 and PW-27 Jagdishchandra Rambhai Dangar, who was examined at Exh.75, have fully supported the case of the prosecution and the learned Judge has committed grave error in disbelieving and discarding the evidence of these witnesses. She also submitted that most of the witnesses have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, however, they have admitted their signatures on the pachnama. In such situation, the learned Judge ought to have exercised the powers vested with him under the provisions of the law and tried to find out the truth to do proper justice in accordance with law. She therefore submitted that medical evidence gets corroboration with the depositions of the complainant and other witnesses. Learned APP submitted that there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the prosecution case and to acquit the respondent. 4. She therefore submitted that medical evidence gets corroboration with the depositions of the complainant and other witnesses. Learned APP submitted that there was no reason for the learned Sessions Judge to disbelieve the prosecution case and to acquit the respondent. 4. 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 & Anr. (2006) 6 SCC 39 , the 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 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.” 4.1 Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 the 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.” 4.2 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. 4.3 Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. (2007) 3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In Para 16 of the said decision the 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.” 4.4 Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors. 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. 4.5 It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write 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 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.” 4.6 Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 5 We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant. 5 We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. We have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant. 5.1 The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence found that PW-21 Ramesh Galabhai Chavda has observed that he was eye-witness, however, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he is known to the complainant and the complainant in his deposition at Exh.70 has not mentioned about the presence of this witness at the scene of offence. While appreciating the evidence of PW-22 Devjibhai Hamirbhai Tundiya, being eye-witness, the learned Trial Court has observed that this witness has also not stated the relevant details. Thus, the learned Judge has further observed that the incident happened at about 7.00 am in the morning and it is not coming on record from the medical papers or other documents that the injured has taken the medical treatment up to 3.16 pm. It also came on record that before the doctor at Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, the injured has given history that he received such injuries on account of accident and he fall down. There was also no explanation about delay in filing the complaint. From the medical evidence it is not established that complainant has sustained injuries by sharp cutting weapon. Thus medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution. None of the panch witness has supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. The trial Court observed that independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. The injuries which were sustained by the complainant was not proved. There is no receovery or discovery of any muddamal knife. There was no bloodstains of the deceased on so-called muddamal knife were recovered. The role of the accused is not established. 5.2 In this fact situation the learned Special Judge has found that there are serious lacunae in the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondent. There are contradictory statements in the complaint and the witnesses. Therefore, the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. 5.3 Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are contradictory statements in the complaint and the witnesses. Therefore, the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. 5.3 Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter 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. 6. 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 leveled against them. 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. 7. 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 reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. 8. Record and Proceedings to be sent to the trial Court.