JUDGMENT : UTKARSH THAKORBHAI DESAI, J. 1. The complainant State, being aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1990 on 08.01.1999, whereby, all the 16 accused were acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 , 307, 147, 148, 326, 324, 323 read with Section 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT , has preferred this appeal. 2. It is pertinent to observe that, the court had granted leave and had admitted this appeal against accused respondent nos. 1, 7, 9, 12 & 16 only, at the relevant time. Hence, we shall appreciate the evidence in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1990, qua the said respondents accused only. 3. Heard learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant State, who has taken us through the entire evidence, both, oral as well as documentary, which was rendered before the learned competent court. In all 28 witnesses were examined along with relevant documentary evidence being produced to that effect. 3.1 Ms. Bhatt, learned APP, at the outset, has taken us through the FIR which was lodged by P.W. 11 – Arjan Hamir which is at Exh. 41 together with his deposition at Exh. 40. On perusing the same, it appears that the said complainant had narrated the facts of his FIR in his examination-in-chief, however, in his cross-examination he was unable to stand his ground. Learned APP Ms. Bhatt has also taken us through the evidence of the other witnesses and also the panchnamas which were drawn by the Investigating Officer. 4. None present on behalf of respondents accused. 5. Having heard learned APP Ms. Bhatt and having gone through the records of the case, it is pertinent to observe that the panch witnesses were hostile and hence, the contents of the panchnamas were not proved. It is also pertinent to note that, the majority of the witnesses or rather all the witnesses, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgement, belong to the same family and the same community. It is also pertinent to note that, the majority of the witnesses or rather all the witnesses, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgement, belong to the same family and the same community. In the first instance and as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the motive of the incident as highlighted by the original complainant and the witnesses, was to avenge the previous murders of two individuals of Rabari community which were committed by the complainant’s side before many years, and the accused therein were convicted, the accused – respondents herein had committed the offence in question. 4.1 The learned Sessions Judge had rightly observed that, a considerable time had elapsed between the said murders and the incident in question, the motive put forth by the prosecution could not be accepted. Further, on perusing the impugned judgement, the learned Sessions Judge had also noted that, the incident in question had occurred because of bursting of firecrackers, and if that be so, the incident in question allegedly based upon the previous two murders of Rabari individuals would not have occurred. The learned Sessions Judge had also mentioned that, when the prosecution had come up with a specific motive, it was incumbent upon them to prove the same, which it had failed in doing so. 4.2 The learned Sessions Judge, while evaluating the deposition of the Investigating Officer had noted that, all the witnesses had admitted that at the time of incident, the accused were sitting at the Ramji Mandir premises with other people. Also, the original complainant i.e. P.W. 11 – Arjan Hamir had admitted in his cross- examination as regards the layout of Ramji Mandir which consisted of two open spaces, a space which was marked as ‘chowk’ and thereafter, the actual temple premises and everyone sitting in the ‘chowk’. If that be so, the fact that the accused were standing there with the muddamal weapons i.e. bill-hooks and wooden sticks was unpalatable. 5. One more aspect which cannot go unnoticed is that, the accused persons along with other three people were also injured in this incident and the learned Sessions Judge had rightly observed that, the prosecution ought to have explained as to how the accused and the other three persons had sustained injuries in the same incident. 5. One more aspect which cannot go unnoticed is that, the accused persons along with other three people were also injured in this incident and the learned Sessions Judge had rightly observed that, the prosecution ought to have explained as to how the accused and the other three persons had sustained injuries in the same incident. The silence of the prosecution in this regard speaks volumes about the truthfulness of the incident, rather, the involvement of the respondents accused in the offence. 6. At this juncture, we would like to consider the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Singh reported in 2009 11 SCC 106 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “in a criminal trial, the failure or non-explanation of injuries on the accused would be fatal for the prosecution case and if such facts are on record and the witnesses were not giving true version and trying to suppress the part played by all of them or some of them, which resulted in causing the injuries to the accused, reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of such witnesses.” 7. The learned Sessions Judge, evaluating the evidence before him, has rightly observed that, the question of unlawful assembly did not arise, and so also, the motive being absent. The accused, being members of such unlawful assembly, was also not proved and they, as members of unlawful assembly having attacked the complainant side with weapons, was also not proved. 8. The learned Sessions Judge had rightly observed that, in spite of the incident having occurred in broad daylight in the presence of the villagers, and as per the say of the original complainant that, the Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of the villagers, none have been examined as witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence before him had also concluded that, the incident had occurred all of a sudden and there was stone pelting from all the directions, hence, it was not clear as to who had hit whom, and in that circumstance, none of the witnesses had stated the names of the assailants before the Investigating Officer and it was only during the trial, when these witnesses had stepped into the witness box, they had chosen to give stereotype depositions, implicating the accused. Hence, the entire incident appeared to be one arising from a group clash. 9. The learned Sessions Judge had also taken note of the arguments advanced by the accused that, the discovery of the weapons was not proved and the blood which was found on the muddamal weapons as well as the clothes was not proved, since the accused were also injured in the said incident. In the event, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge had rightly acquitted the accused persons of the charge framed against them and, more particularly, the accused -respondents nos. 1, 7, 9, 12 & 16. 10. At this juncture, it would be apposite to observe the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1995 SC 280 wherein it was held as under: “13. On evalution of the entire evidence and the material on record the learned Trial Judge acquitted the appellant as well as the three co- accused namely, Nanu, Hazarilal and Santlal holding that the Statement Ext. PG said to have been made by Kamla, PW 3 in the hospital to ASI, Bhana Ram, PW 6 was ante-timed, there was unexplained delay of 32 hours in sending the report to the Magistrate concerned, the inquest reports were also not prepared at the alleged time, ASI, Bhana Ram, PW 6 did not mention in the inquest reports the location of the empties found lying by the side of the dead bodies and that the deceased Om would not have been fired from close range as deposed by Kamla, PW 3. On these findings the learned Trial Judge took the view that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt against any of the accused persons including the appellant and, therefore, acquitted them all from the offences they were charged with. 14. The State of Haryana preperred an appeal against the judgement and order of acquittal. The co-accused Nanu Ram died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal against him abated. The High Court maintained the acquittal of the co-accused Nanu Ram and the appellant. The High Court took the view that the co-accused Nanu Ram was liable to be convicted under Secs. The co-accused Nanu Ram died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal against him abated. The High Court maintained the acquittal of the co-accused Nanu Ram and the appellant. The High Court took the view that the co-accused Nanu Ram was liable to be convicted under Secs. 302 and 302/34 for causing death of Om and Mahinder and also u/s. 307/34 for causing injuries to Kamla and Rajinder but since he died on 25-10-90 the appeal against him had abated. The appellant Ram Kumar has been convicted under S.302/34 of the Penal Code for causing the death of Om and, therefore, he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The High Count has further directed that in case of recovery of fine the same will be paid to the heirs of deceased Om. The appellant has been further convicted under S.307/34 of the Penal Code on two counts for causing injuries to Kamla, PW 3 and her son Rajinder, PW 4 for which he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count. All the sentences had been directed to run concurrently. It is against these convictions and sentences that the appellant Ram Kumar has preferred this appeal before this Court.” 11. We may also refer to some of the propositions enunciated by the Supreme Court with regard to exercise of appellate jurisdiction. In case of Sanjeev v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2022 (6) SCC 294 para 7 reads as under: “7. It is well settled that:- 7.1 While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the Trial Court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with, in case the appellate Court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court deserves to be upturned (See Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka3, Anwar Ali and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh). 7.2 With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (See Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh). 7.2 With an order of acquittal by the Trial Court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (See Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh). 7.3 If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate Court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (See Sambasivan and others v. State of Kerala).” 11.1 Similarly, in the case of Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and another reported in [2024] 4 S.C.R. 322 the relevant paragraphs read as under: “6. It is true that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court has to reappreciate the evidence. After re- appreciating the evidence, the first question that needs to be answered by the Appellate Court is whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view that could have been taken based on evidence on record. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court shows that this question has not been adverted to. Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it is satisfied after reappreciating the evidence that the only possible conclusion was that the guilt of the accused had been established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Appellate Court cannot overturn order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible. In other words, the judgment of acquittal must be found to be perverse. Unless the Appellate Court records such a finding, no interference can be made with the order of acquittal. The High Court has ignored the well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the 326 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports accused. After having perused the judgment, we find that the High Court has not addressed itself on the main question. 7. The second error the High Court committed is found in paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment. The High Court has gone to the extent of recording a finding that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence in their support, failed to examine the defence witness and failed to establish falsity of the prosecution’s version. This concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong. Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. This concept of the burden of proof is entirely wrong. Unless, under the relevant penal statute, there is a negative burden put on the accused or there is a reverse onus clause, the accused is not required to discharge any burden. In a case where there is a statutory presumption, after the prosecution discharges initial burden, the burden of rebuttal may shift on the accused. In the absence of the statutory provisions as above, in this case, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the High Court’s finding on the burden of proof is completely erroneous. It is contrary to the law of the land. ... 11. Therefore, the appeal must succeed. We set aside the judgment and order dated 14th December 2018 of the High Court and set aside the conviction of the appellants. The judgment and order dated 5th July 1997 of the Trial Court is restored. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The bail bonds of the appellant no.2 are cancelled. The appellant no.1 shall be forthwith set at liberty unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case.” 12. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgement 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 , reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under: "... This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. 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." 12.1 Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the competent court below, then the discussion of evidence at length is not necessary. 13. 13. We have appreciated, re-appreciated and re- evaluated the evidence on the touchstone of latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In light of the position of law as referred above and in the facts of the present case, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgement and order dated 08.01.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1990. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed qua respondents nos. 1, 7, 9, 12 & 16. R & P, if any called for, to be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.