K.S. Jhaveri, J.

1. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgement and order of acquittal dated 20.11.1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli in Sessions Case No. 17 of 1989 whereby the accused were acquitted of the charges leveled against them.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

2.1 That on 22.12.1988 at about 10.00 a.m. in the sim of village Sukhpur in the vadi of accused, deceased Faizmomad Gulmomad and his brother Noormomad went to take leaves and grass for their camel. Witness Noormomad stood outside the vadi with camel. Deceased Faijmomad went in vadi in order to purchase fodder from the accused and there were exchange of words and accused No. 1 gave blow with spade and accused No. 2 with crow-bar on the head and other parts of Faizmomad. On seeing such incident Noormomad ran away and deceased Faizmomad died on the spot. Accordingly a complaint was lodged before Dhari Police Station. The same was registered as C.R. No. 107 of 1988 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.3 Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of witnesses were recorded. Ultimately, chargesheet was filed against the respondents before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhari.

2.4 Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amreli under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 17 of 1989. The trial was initiated against the respondents.

2.5 To prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:

P.W.1 Dr. Ushaben Girishkumar Dwivedi-Exh. 12

P.W.2 Dostmahama Gulmahamad-Exh. 15

P.W.3 Noormahmad Gulmahammad-Exh. 16

P.W.4 Babubhai Alarakhabhai-Exh. 17

P.W. 5 Jerambhai Mohanbhai-Exh. 18

P.W.6 Alarakhbhai Husainbhai-Exh. 19

P.W.7 Limbabhai Popatbhai-Exh. 21

P.W.8 Chhotubhai Mahamadbhai-Exh. 23

P.W.9 Sardarsinh Chavda-Exh. 25

P.W.10 Indrasinh Natwarsinh jadeja-Exh. 27

2.6 In order to support the case, the prosecution has produced the following documents:

[1] Report sent by P.S.I Dhari to PSO, Dhari_Exh. 8

[2] Complaint-Exh. 12

[3] Inquest Panchnama-Exh. 9

[4] Panchnama of scene of offence-Exh. 20

[5] Discovery Panchnama-Exh. 22

[6] Arrest Panchnama-Exh. 24

[7] Panchnama of seizure of clothes of the dead body of the deceased-Exh. 10

[8] An office copy sent to F.S.L regarding sending of muddamal-Exh.

[9] P.M. Note-Exh. 13

[10] F.S.L Receipt-Exh. 28

[11] F.S.L Report-Exh. 29

[12] Serological Report-Exh. 30, 31

[13] Map of scene of offence-Exh. 11

2.7 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 Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against them by judgement and order dated 20.11.1990.

2.8 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned APP contended that the judgement and order of the learned Sessions Judge is against the provisions of law; the learned 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 respondents.

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 v. State of Kerala and Anr. reported in : (2006)6 SCC 39 [LQ/SC/1998/626] , 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 judgement 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 v. State of Karnataka reported in : (2007)4 SCC 415 [LQ/SC/2009/345] 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, reappreciate 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. 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 v. Sanjay Thakran and Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75 [LQ/SC/1992/70] , 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 judgement 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 v. Ram Veer Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. State of M.P. reported in AIR 2007 SCW 5589 [LQ/SC/2007/1049] . 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 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 Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy reported in : AIR 1981 SC 1417 [LQ/SC/1981/45] wherein it is held as under:

This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi v. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary : (1967)1 SCR 93 [LQ/SC/1966/149] : AIR 1967 SC 1124 [LQ/SC/1966/149] 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 judgement 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 Advocates for both the sides.

5.1 The trial court after appreciation of the evidence found that the deceased had attacked on accused No. 1 and therefore, in his self-defence the accused had attacked on the deceased. The accused had lodged complaint regarding the incident. From the further statement under Section 313 it is revealed that the history of deceased was not good. The P.W. Dr. Ushaben Girishkumar Dwivedi at Ehx. 12 deposed in her cross-examination that there was possibility of sustaining injury because of swelling of stick blow. She also deposed that external injury was not sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. The prosecution has not established the role of each of the accused. The version of the eye-witness does not support the case of the prosecution. There is also doubt about the investigation of panchanama. There is no evidence regarding the quarrel between the deceased and the accused.

5.2 In this fact situation the Sessions Court has found that there are serious lacunae and contradictions in the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the respondents. 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. Mr. Kodekar, 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 respondents of the charges leveled against them.

7. 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.

8. 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. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled.