JUDGMENT : MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J. 1. The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant – State of Gujarat under the provisions of sub-sections (1) & (3) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter be referred to as Cr.P.C. ) challenging the Judgment dated 22.09.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Surendranagar ( hereinafter be referred to as the Ld. Trial Court / Ld. ASJ ) in Sessions Case No.7 of 1997, whereby the Respondents herein were ordered to have been acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 147, 148, 149 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860 ( hereinafter be referred to as IPC ) and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT 1951 (hereinafter be referred to as BP Act ). 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are as follows: On 25.08.1996, at about 09:00 hours, in the sim of Village: Vadghara, Tal: Muli, Dist: Surendranagar, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons such as dhariyas, sticks, and iron rods. In furtherance of their common intention, they attacked the complainant’s husband-Samatbhai with an intention to kill him and caused grievous injuries to him. When the complainant- Gauriben and her son-Meru, intervened to save Samatbhai, the accused persons also inflicted grievous injuries upon them using the deadly weapons. Due to the grievous injuries sustained, Samatbhai succumbed to his injuries. 3. Accordingly, FIR being I.C.R.No.36 of 1996 was lodged at Muli Police Station, District – Surendranagar, and investigation was carried out and ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 147, 148, 149 and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act before the Judicial Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of Sessions Court, Surendranagar, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.7/1997. 4. On 06.06.2001, the learned Trial Court framed the charges at Exh. 2 under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 147, 148, 149 and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act. 4. On 06.06.2001, the learned Trial Court framed the charges at Exh. 2 under Sections 302 , 307, 324, 147, 148, 149 and 504 of the IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act. Since, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the said offences. 5. In order to bring the home the guilty of the accused, the prosecution has led following oral and documentary evidences:- ORAL EVIDENCE Sr.No. P.W.NO. WITNESS Exh. 1 1 Dr.H.T.Jhala – Medical Officer 37 2 2 Complainant – Gauriben W/o. Deceased Samatbhai 48 3 3 Injured witness - Merubhai Samatbhai Koli 49 4 4 Surajben D/o. Deceased Samatbhai Koli 50 5 5 Prabhaben D/o. Deceased Samatbhai Koli 51 6 6 Circle Officer – Natwarbhai Dipubhai Gami 56 7 7 A.S.I. Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Solanki 59 8 8 Rajendra Keshavlal Panchal 62 9 9 Hamsabhai Dungarbhai Dudhrejiya 64 10 10 Ghugabhai Kukabhai 65 11 11 Lagrabhai Merabhai Bharwad 66 12 12 Police Constable – Shantubhai Bahaduribhai Khavad 68 13 13 Panch – Jayendrasinh Mahobatsinh Jhala 73 14 14 Panch-Rasikkumar Jamnadas Savaliya 75 15 15 Panch-Akbarsha Motisha Fakir 76 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr.No. EXH Description 1. 38 Police Yadi to Medical Officer for Post-Mortem 2. 39 Death Registration Application Form 3. 40 Inquest Panchnama 4. 41 P.M.Report of the deceased 5. 42 Yadi to Medical Officer for treatment 6. 43-44 Injury Case Papers and Injury Certificate of Complainant-Gauriben 7. 45 Injury Certificate of Merubhai Samatbhai 8. 52 Scene of offence panchnama 9. 53 Panchnama of body of Injured witness – Meru Samat 10. 54 Recovery panchanama of clothes of the deceased 11. 55 Recovery panchanama of blood samples of the deceased 12. 57-58 Local spot map and report 13. 60 Extract of Entry No.12 of Muli Police Station diary 14. 61 Original Complaint 15. 69 Recovery Panchnama of muddamal weapon 16. 70 to 72 F.S.L. papers and report 6. After recording all the evidences, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., were recorded and all the incriminatory evidences were put to them. They denied all the incriminatory evidences and took the plea that they have been false implicated in the crime. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of Accused persons but they had not led any oral and/ or documentary evidences. They denied all the incriminatory evidences and took the plea that they have been false implicated in the crime. Thereafter, the case was fixed for the evidence of Accused persons but they had not led any oral and/ or documentary evidences. Thereafter, hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence and having considered the arguments and evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidences, the Ld. ASJ acquitted all the accused of all the charges levelled against them by the Judgment dated 22.09.2003. 7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22.09.2003 passed by the Ld. ASJ, Fast-track Court, Surendranagar, the appellant-State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 8. We have heard Mr.Krutik Parikh, learned APP for the appellant-State. Learned APP vehemently submitted that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence in right perspective and committed an error in arriving at the conclusion, and thereby, recorded the acquittal. 9. Learned APP further submitted that P.W.2 Gauriben Wd/o. Deceased Samatbhai Koli and P.W.3 Merubhai S/o. deceased Samatbhai Koli are the eye-witnesses to the incident. They partly supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that their versions are also supported by the medical evidence. The prosecution has examined Dr. H.T. Jhala as P.W.1 and in his deposition Exh.37, he deposed that the victim Samatbhai Motibhai succumbed to the injuries and all the injuries were ante-mortem and the injuries can be caused by the iron rod, stick and dhariya. Relying upon the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, learned APP has submitted that the impugned judgment is not sustainable. 10. Having considered the submissions made by Mr.Krutik Parikh, learned APP and having perused the evidences on record, it is evident on record that the prosecution had examined as many as 15 witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidences. The prosecution has examined Dr.H.T.Jhala as P.W.1 at Exh.37. He deposed that he conducted the Post-mortem of the deceased-Samatbhai Motibhai Koli. He also deposed that the victim succumbed to death owing to the injuries sustained by him. He also proved the post-mortem note at Exh.41. As per the opinion of P.W.1, the death of the victim is caused due to severe bleeding from the wound and injuries to brain and multiple fractures. All injuries sustained by the deceased were ante-mortem. Therefore, the death of the deceased was unnatural. He also proved the post-mortem note at Exh.41. As per the opinion of P.W.1, the death of the victim is caused due to severe bleeding from the wound and injuries to brain and multiple fractures. All injuries sustained by the deceased were ante-mortem. Therefore, the death of the deceased was unnatural. In the cross-examination, he admitted that it admitted that he cannot opine that by which weapon, the injuries were caused. He also admitted that the fracture of tibia and fibula can be sustained in vehicular accident. Thus, the conclusion from his evidence can be drawn that Samatbhai died due to unnatural death. 11. The prosecution has also examined wife of the deceased viz. Gauriben as P.W.2 at Exh.48. In her deposition, she stated that the accused are not known to her and she cannot identify the accused. She also stated that at the time of incident, she, her son and her daughter were in the field and at that time, her husband fled away from there and when they were in the field, 3 to 4 unknown persons came and they inquired about her husband. She had not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, she was declared as hostile and she was cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor at length, but during her cross-examination, nothing favourable came on record. Therefore, no further discussion is required. 12. The prosecution has also examined Injured witness - Mr.Merubhai Samatbhai Koli as P.W.3 at Exh.49. He deposed that at the time of incident, the unknown persons inflicted iron rod, dhariya and stock blows on him, and therefore, he became unconscious and fell down. Therefore, he cannot say that, who has assaulted his father. He also stated that he cannot identify the accused, who are sitting in the Court and he do not knew the name. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross-examined, but in his cross-examination also, the prosecution failed to elicit any iota of evidence against the accused. 13. The prosecution has also examined Surajben D/o. Deceased Samatbhai Koli as P.W.4 at Exh.50. She has also not supported the case of prosecution and she was also declared hostile to the case of prosecution and she was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but the prosecution failed to elicit any iota of of evidence in her cross-examination. 13. The prosecution has also examined Surajben D/o. Deceased Samatbhai Koli as P.W.4 at Exh.50. She has also not supported the case of prosecution and she was also declared hostile to the case of prosecution and she was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but the prosecution failed to elicit any iota of of evidence in her cross-examination. Similarly, Ms.Prabhaben D/o. Deceased Samatbhai was also examined as P.W.5 at Exh.51 and she had also not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. The prosecution has also examined Natubhai Dipubhai Gamit, Circle OfÏcer as P.W.6 at Exh.56. He drawn the side plan of the place of incident. The prosecution has examined Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Solanki, ASI as P.W.7 at Exh.59. In his deposition, he proved that he got recorded the complaint. Mr.Rajendra Keshavlal Panchal was examined as P.W.8 at Exh.62. In his deposition, he proved the notification issued by the District Magistrate under Section 37 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT . Mr. Hamsabhai Dungarbhai Dudhrejiya was also examined as P.W.9 at Exh.64. He had also not supported the case of prosecution and declared turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Similarly, Mr.Gugabhai Kukabhai was examined as P.W.10 at Exh.65. In his depostion, he had not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Mr.Lagrabhai Merabhai Bharwad, Panch-witness was examined as P.W.11 at Exh.66. In his deposition, he deposed that he signed a prepared panchnama and he is not aware about the contents of the panchnama. Therefore, he was declared turned hotile to the case of prosecution. Mr. Shantubhai Bahaduribhai Khavad, Police Constable was examined as PW.12 at Exh. 68. In his deposition, he proved that Gauriben Samatbhai Koli lodged the complaint, but he has not recorded the complaint and it appears that it is in the hand-writing of P.S.O. Bhikhubhai. Mr. Jayendrasinh Mahobatsinh Jhala, Panch-witness of the weapons allegedly used in the crime, was examined as P.W.13 at Exh.73. He has also not supported the case of prosecution was declared turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Mr. Akbarsha Motisha Fakir, panch-witness, was examined as P.W.15 at Exh.76. He has also not supported the case of prosecution and was declared turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 14. He has also not supported the case of prosecution was declared turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Mr. Akbarsha Motisha Fakir, panch-witness, was examined as P.W.15 at Exh.76. He has also not supported the case of prosecution and was declared turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 14. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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, reafÏrmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 15. Further, 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. Further, 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. 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 the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 16. 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 the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 16. In the instance case, learned APP failed to point out any cogent and incriminating evidence against the accused persons, which may connect the accused persons with the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 . The relevant observations made in the said judgment are as under:- “….. (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order Code of Criminal Procedure of acquittal is founded; (2) The , 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 sufÏcient 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 emphasize 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 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, reafÏrmed 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.” 17. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reafÏrmed 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.” 17. Applying the aforesaid principle as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa (supra), it is apparent on record that no credible evidence had been produced by the prosecution, which may connect the accused persons in the alleged crime. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused persons from the challenges levelled against them. 18. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Judge committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed . The judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 22.09.2003 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith. No order as to costs.