The appellate court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings in acquittal appeals when the reasons assigned by the court below 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 5.4.2006 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2004.

2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that while the complainant has gone to hospital, the respondent accused has attempted to abduct and/or entice away the minor daughter of he complainant from her lawful possession with clear intention to have illicit sexual intercourse with her. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent 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 8 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as original complaint Exh. 11, panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 13 and panchnama of arrest of the accused Exh. 14.

3.2. At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr PC 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. 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 even though the victim was minor and she has deposed as regards as to what has happened with her and the same has been supported by deposition of another minor though it is not getting corroboration from other independent witness and wrongfully acquitted the accused though ample evidence is available on record for the alleged offences. 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 respondents are required to be convicted, as such.

6. On the other-hand, Mr. Hardik Shah, 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. Shah further submitted that there is no iota of evidence available against the present accused. He submitted that the complainant has lodged the complaint on here say information and she has not witnessed the incident. He submitted that entire case of the prosecution is rested upon the evidence of two minor and the said evidence has no uniformity and lots of improvements have been made during the trial. He submitted that the evidence of the minor also suffers from lots of contradictions and, therefore, the said evidence is rightly not believed by learned trial Court. He submitted that even otherwise also, the evidence of minor is not getting support from other eye witness Madhuben who turned hostile. He submitted that in absence of corroboration and supports from independent witness, conviction shoul