The appellate court is not required to rewrite the judgment or provide fresh reasoning in acquittal appeals if the reasons given by the lower court are found to be just and proper.

R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.5.2005 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Fast Track Court, Palanpur in Special Case No. 28 of 2003.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant registered the complaint stating the fact that on 4.10.1998 at about 10.30 hours at village Malsan sim, near Talav, while prosecution witness Sitaben was going to her field for agricultural work, the respondent accused chased her and by applying whistle, she was directed to stop. It is alleged that the accused caught hold of her and made illegal demand of having sexual intercourse with her, therefore, the said witness shouted for help and in the meantime, her husband as well as wife of brother of the complainant came to the spot of incident and saved the prosecution witness Sitaben. It is alleged that the accused had also given filthy abuses to the complainant relating to his caste and thereby insulted in public. It is alleged that the respondent accused had also given blow of dhoka to the complainant and caused injuries. Hence, the complaint came to be registered against the respondents accused.

3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the chargesheet against the respondent accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as original complaint of the complainant Exh.10, panchnama of scene of offence Exh.22, injury certificate of Harijan Seghabhai Exh.23 etc.

3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such.

5.1 Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongfully acquitted the accused though ample evidence is available on record. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondent is required to be convicted, as such.

6. On the other-hand, Mr. Saiyed, learned Advocate for the respondent accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Saiyed further submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Saiyed, learned advocate for the respondent accused.

8. This Court has minutely go