Judgment Choudhary Saran Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal under section 417 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 the respondents eight in number having been acquitted of the charges under section 302 and 148, I. P. C. by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. Chapra. 2. The relevant facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 5.8.1967, the deceased Ram Dayali Prasad alias Deyali Rai was returning from Pojhi bazar in the company of Bhagwat Rai (P. W.2) and Satya Narain Rai (P. W.6 ). There was a culvert on the kucha village road at some distance front the populated part of village Bankera, the residential village of the informant (P. W.2) as also of seven of the respondents of this appeal. When the deceased and his two companions reached near the culvert at about 8 p. m the eight respondents, five of them, armed with daggers and three of them with bhsiss, suddenly emerged from under the said culvert and attacked the deceased Five of the respondents having daggers in their hands assaulted the deceased first as a result of which he fell down on the ground. Thereafter the three respondents armed with bhala are said to have also assaulted him. As a result of this assault, the deceased succumbed to his injuries at the place of occurrence itself; 3. The alarm raised by the informant (P. W.2) and (P. W.6) attracted certain persons. One Bharat Salmi (P. W.3) also happened to be there at that time while returning from Pojhi Bazar after sale of fish. Under the directions of the informant as also Satya Narain Rai (P. W.6), he informed the other family members of the deceased, namely, Nehali Rai (P. W.7) and others, about the incident whereupon. (P. W.7 and others also came to the place of occurrence. Since it was raining heavily, the dead body of the deceased was removed to his house in village Bankerwa from the place of occurrence. 4. A. S. I, of Police, Sushil Jha (P. W.1) and Constable, Mohammad hussain, (P. W.4) were on the night round duty in village Bankerwa, it being the bark period of the Pakh. Since it was raining heavily, the dead body of the deceased was removed to his house in village Bankerwa from the place of occurrence. 4. A. S. I, of Police, Sushil Jha (P. W.1) and Constable, Mohammad hussain, (P. W.4) were on the night round duty in village Bankerwa, it being the bark period of the Pakh. On getting information about the murder, the a. S. I. of Police (P. W.1) Want to the house of the deceased where he reached at 10 p. m. He recorded the fard-bayan of the informant (Ext.1) and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Arrangement was also made by him for post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased which was held by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Shri Ram Nath Verma (P. W.12), who found several serious injuries on the person of the deceased. The initial investigation of the case was made by the A. S. I, of Police (P. W.1) and subsequently by officer-in-charge of the Parsa Police Station ; Shrinath Prasad (P. W.8) and the latter summed charge-sheet in this case. 5. On being committed to the Court of Session, charges, as stated above, were framed against all the eight respondents. The respondents denied the charges and asserted false implication on account of enmity giving rise to a series of litigations. The defence having been accepted by the learned trial court, all the respondents have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. 6. It is undisputed that the deceased was a victim of murder, his death having been caused by shock and hoemorrhage as a result of a large number of injuries on his person, as found by the doctor (P. W.12), exhibit 9 being his post-mortem report. The time and place of murder, as alleged by the prosecution, was also not disputed. It was further not disputed before us that there was long standing enmity between the prosecution party and the respondents which gave rise to a series of litigations, some of which were actually pending at the lime of occurrence. It is in evidence that the deceased used to make pairvi in all these cases on behalf of the prosecution party. The appeal against acquittal is a somewhat serious matter as the liberty of a person once acquitted in against put in jeopardy. It is in evidence that the deceased used to make pairvi in all these cases on behalf of the prosecution party. The appeal against acquittal is a somewhat serious matter as the liberty of a person once acquitted in against put in jeopardy. Certain principles have to be borne in mind while dealing with an appeal against acquittal. Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to be referred to hereinafter as the Code, give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. The only requirement which the appellate court must observe is that white dealing with an order of acquittal, the appellate court should not only consider every matter on the record having bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the trial court in support of its order of acquittal, but it should also express its reasons in its judgment which lead it to hold that the order of acquittal is not justified. The Supreme Court in the case of Lobh Singh and others, v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 83 has observed that it is now well-settled that the powers of the High Court under sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code (or for that matter under the corresponding provisions of the new Code of 1973) while hearing an appeal against an acquittal are as wide comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction. It has full power to reappraise to the entire evidence upon which theorder of acquittal was based and to reach its own conclusion. It has full power to reappraise to the entire evidence upon which theorder of acquittal was based and to reach its own conclusion. But before reversing an order of acquittal it should endeavour to displace or dispel in a general or specific way the primary reasoning of the trial court upon which the acquittal is founded, paying due regard and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses and the value of their evidence; (2) the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by his acquittal at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4)the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. It follows as a corollary from the above, that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting acquittal the other indicating conviction, the High court should not interfere merely because it feels, that it would, sitting as a trial Court, have taken the other view. It may also be useful to refer in this connection to the latest decision of the Supreme Court, so far reported, in the case of Rajendra Prasad V/s. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1059. Their Lordships observed that when a trial court, with full view of the witnesses, acquits an accused after disbelieving direct testimony, it will be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds, from the record, for discarding the reasons of the triai court in order to be able to reach, a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that the High court should be able to point out in its judgment that the trial courts reasons are palpably and unerringly shaky and its own reasons are demonstrably cogent. As a salutary rule of appreciation of evidence, in an appeal against acquittal, it is not legally sufficient that it is just possible for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses but It is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it welling impossible for the trial court to reject their testimony. As a salutary rule of appreciation of evidence, in an appeal against acquittal, it is not legally sufficient that it is just possible for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses but It is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it welling impossible for the trial court to reject their testimony. This is the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. 7. The presecution examined 12 witnesses in this case, out of whom bhuali Rai (P, W.5), full brother of the deceased, was tendered. P. W.12 as stated above, is the doctor, who held the post-mortem examination, janakdeo Singh (P. W.9), Parma Nand Ojha (P. W.10) and Rajendra Prasad sinha (P. W.11) are formal witnesses. P. W.1 is the A. S. I, of Police, who recorded the fard-beyan (Ext.1) and held the initial investigation, p. W.8 being the main investigating Officer of the case. Mohammad hussain, Constable (P. W.4) was deputed in village Bankerwa in the night of occurrence with P. W.1. While Bhagwat Rai (P. W.2) and Satya Narain rai (P. W.6) figure as eye-witnesses giving direct evidence to the actual occurrence, Bhagwat Rai (P. W.3), who was declared hostile by the prosecution, p. W.4 and Nehali Rai (P. W.7) were examined to give corroborative evidence. 8. Coming to the two eye-witnesses, relying on the evidence and circumstances, the trial court-has held that it is extremely doubtful that any of them, namely, P, W. , 2 and P.- W.6, had really seen the occurrence and were present at the time thereof and after dubbing P. W.6 as, a clever sort of witness has further held that it appears to be extremely unsafe to rely on the evidence of either of them. The conclusion of the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, appears to be wholly justified and reasonable. P. W.2 and P. W.6 are related to the deceased as nephew. P. W.2 is the son of Nehali Rai (P. W.7), full brother of the deceased. P. W.6 is the son of Sri Kissun Rai, cousin of P. W.7. P. W.2 and P. W.6 are related to the deceased as nephew. P. W.2 is the son of Nehali Rai (P. W.7), full brother of the deceased. P. W.6 is the son of Sri Kissun Rai, cousin of P. W.7. Apart from the various litigations going on between the deceased and his agamic relations on the one hand and some of the respondents on the other, Girja Thakur father of respondent Rambinod Thakur had filed a civil suit against the deceased which was pending at the time of occurrence. This Girja Thakur had also filed a civil suit against P. W.6 which too was pending at the time of deposition of P. W.6. It would thus appear that, besides being interested in the prosecution, both these two eye-witnesses also appear to have animus against the respondents and, obviously, therefore, they also shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailants. This would itself necessitate a close security of their evidence before passing any conviction thereon. 9. The occurrence took place at about 8 p. m. The A. S. I. of police (P. W.1) gives us a short topography of the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence was on a kuncha village road.80 yards east of the place of occurrence was the house of one Sital Bhagat and there is a sugarcane weighing machine centre at a distance of about 100 yards from the place of occurrence. The populated parts of village Bankerwa lies 400 yards away from the place of occurrence on two sides, namely, north and south, village Bharmara being at a distance of 600 yards from the place of occurrence, Both P. W.2 and P. W.6 claimed to have raised hulla but there is no evidence to the effect that anyone except P. W.2 and p. W.6 saw the culprits even fleeing away, particularly when, as stated by p. W.2, the house of one Chabila Singh also stands on the road in between the place of occurrence and the house of the deceased and, according to p. W.6, about one hundred persons had collected at the place of occurrence after the occurrence. According to fard-beyan (Ext.1) one Kamaldeo Sah and p. W.3 arrived at the place of occurrence shortly after the occurrence. According to fard-beyan (Ext.1) one Kamaldeo Sah and p. W.3 arrived at the place of occurrence shortly after the occurrence. Both p. W.2 and P. W.6 claimed to have disclosed the names of all the respondents as the assailants of the deceased to them and also asked them to inform the other family members of the deceased. While P. W.3 has been examined, the prosecution has not chosen to examine Kamaldeo Sah and no reason at all is forthcoming for his non-examination. P. W.3 did not also support the two eye-witnesses on this point, he having specifically stated in his evidence in the trial court that both of them while telling him that the deceased had been killed had not disclosed the names of any of the assailants of the deceased and, P. W.3 further stated, he informed P. W.7, the full brother of the deceased, accordingly. On getting the information from p. W.3. four persons are said to have rushed to the place of occurrence. They are Bhuali Rai (P. W.5), Nehali Rai (P. W.7) and Subhash Rai and deonandan Rai P. W.5 is the full brother of the deceased and he has been tendered. Subhash Rai and Deonandan Rai have not been examined, there also being no satisfactory explanation for their examination and it was P. W.7 alone who come to say that P. W.3 had told him the names of the eight respondents as the assailants of the deceased. Being the full brother of the deceased, P. W.7 is undisputedly an interested witness having animus against the respondents. The investigating officer (P. W.8) tells us that P. W.7 had merely stated before him about the information given by P. W.3 regarding had merely stated before him about the deceased being killed by his enemies. Obviously, therefore, P. W.7 had not stated before the police that P. W.3 had disclosed the names of the assiailants him. Referring to Ext.7, an affidavit sworn in by P. W 3 on 19.9.1967 and proved by P. W.9, the contention was that this witness had earlier stated in the affidavit about P. Ws.2 and 6 naming the assailants of the deceased to him. On attention being drawn, P. W.3 stated that the contents of the affidavit had not been read over to him. On attention being drawn, P. W.3 stated that the contents of the affidavit had not been read over to him. The evidence of p. W.3 itself shows that P. W.3 has at least a man of the camp of the deceased. The deceased had filed a case against one Dharam Nath and others and P. W.3 was a witness for the deceased. His evidence further shows that he was on inimicial terms at least with one of the respondents, namely, Rambinod Thakur, as his statement was that one Jaleshwar Sahni had filed a theft case against him in which Girja Thakur father of respondent rambinod Thakur had deposed against him. It is also his statement that there was a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. between one Daroga thakur and father of P. W.3 and that Girja Thakur, above-named, had sworn in an affidavit against his father. In such circumstances, it is rather difficult to believe that P. W.3 would have any reason for going over to the said of the respondents. In these circumstances and in view of the evidence of P. W.3 as given in the trial court, his earlier statement made in the affidavit, the statements whereof have been disclaimed by him, cannot be preferred to his evidence in this Court. Thus if the names of the assailants were not disclosed to P. W.3 the question of his disclosing their names to p. W.7 cannot arise. Had P. W.2 and P. W.6 really seen the assailants of the deceased or had they been really present at the time of the assault on the deceased, it was expected in ordinary course of human conduct that they would have disclosed the names of the assailants to P. W.3 when they were directing to inform their other family members and thus the non-disclosure of names by them to P. W.3 casts a serious doubt about their claim of being present at the time of occurrence and seeing the assault itself. 10. Learned counsel for the State straneously contended that, in view of the disclosure of the names of the assailants by P. W.2 in Exhibit recorded at 10 p. m. , the omission on the part of the informant in narrating the names of the assailants to P. W.3 may be overlooked and may not be given any importance. 10. Learned counsel for the State straneously contended that, in view of the disclosure of the names of the assailants by P. W.2 in Exhibit recorded at 10 p. m. , the omission on the part of the informant in narrating the names of the assailants to P. W.3 may be overlooked and may not be given any importance. While P. W.3 reached the place of occurrence shortly after the occurrence was over, Ext.1 was recorded at the Darwaja of the informant at 10p. m. after about two hours of the occurrence when p. W-2 and others had removed the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence to the Darwaja. In view of the enmity existing between the partias, this time lag of two hours may offer sufficient opportunity to the prosecution party to concoct a case against the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel for the State, in the facts and circumstances of this case, cannot be upheld. 11. There are other circumstances to which require serious consideration there was some commotion in the village when the dead body of the deceased was carried from the place of occurrence to his Darwaja, This attracted the attention of the A. S. I. of Police (P. W.1) and he asked P. W.4, the C onstabie, to see what the matter was. Accordingly P. W.4 proceeded on the road and saw the dead body being carried. Undisputedly, both the informant and Satya Narain Rai were present with the dead body. Neither p. W.2 nor P. W.6 told P. W.4 on that occasion the names of the respondents as the assailants of the deceased. Learned counsel for the State invited our attention in this connection to the document (Ext.4) which is in the nature of a protest petition. This was filed on 18.8.1967 and it states, inter alia, about the conclusion between the police and the persons implicated. The contention was that, as the police was siding with the respondents, p. W.4 might have made a wrong statement about neither P. W.2 nor p. W.6 disclosing the names of the assailants to him. This contention overlooks the clear statement of P. W.2 and P. W.6 himself wherein they specificaally and in unequivocal terms stated that they had not disclosed the names of any of the respondents as the assailants of the deceased to P. W.4. This contention overlooks the clear statement of P. W.2 and P. W.6 himself wherein they specificaally and in unequivocal terms stated that they had not disclosed the names of any of the respondents as the assailants of the deceased to P. W.4. They could not also assign any reason for the non-disclosure of the names of the respondents to P. W.4. This again, it must be said, is against ordinary course of human conduct and introduces improbability in P. W.2 or P. W.6 seeing the actual assault. 12. P. W.2 and P. W.6 claimed to returning with the deceased from pojhi Bazar. Both of them claimed to have cycles with them while the deceased was coming on foot. P. W.6 being a Taid was present in Chapra court on 5.8.1967, Chapra being at a distance of 20 to 22 miles from village bankerwa. Though there was direct bus service from Chapra to village bankerwa, P. W.5 was coming to his village via Pojhi Bazar. There is no evidence that P. W.6 had anything to purchase in Pojhi Bazar or that, in fact, he did purchase anything there on that date. In his turn, P. W-2 claimed to have gone to Pojhi Bazar to purchase vegetable but there is no evidence whether any vegetable was purchased by him. The deceased was simply said to have purchased some onion. This onion was not produced before the A. S. I. of Police (P. W.1 ). He did not find any such onion at the place of occurrence itself. Whereas according to P. W.2, as stated in the fard-beyan (Ext.1), the deceased was carrying this onion in his hand, P.-W.2 had stated before the investigating officer (P. W.8) that he was carrying the onion himself in a Jhola tied up to his cycle. If P. W.2 and P. W.6 had actually cycles with them, as the prosecution alleges, ordinarily considering the dawn of the night one would have expected them to return to the village on cycle instead of coming on fool with the cycle with the deceased. " None of these two cycles was made over to the A. S. I. of Police nor did he find any such cycles at the Derwaja of the deceased. P. W.2 could not say either the make of the cycle which he was carrying or as to who had purchased the same. " None of these two cycles was made over to the A. S. I. of Police nor did he find any such cycles at the Derwaja of the deceased. P. W.2 could not say either the make of the cycle which he was carrying or as to who had purchased the same. Thus the prosecution story about the purchase of onion by the deceased as also P. W.2 and P. W.6 being in possession of cycles appears to be unfit for credence and all these also introduced element of improbability in the prosecution case. 13. The medical evidence furnished by the doctor (P. W.12) does not also appear to be consistent with the oral version. The assailants were eight in number, five armed with daggers and three with bhalas. Inimical as the assailants were towards the deceased, the assault with daggers as Stated by P. W.2 was incessant (and hahun ). The evidence further goes that assault continued on the deceased even after he fell down but let us now see the nature of the injuries found by the doctor. The number of penetrating injuries were only three, the number of incised wounds being as many as nine. The doctor tells us that if a bhala or a dagger is used in the usual way, it will cause penetrating injury. The doctor has, no doubt, stated that incised injuries might have been possible by the blade portion of dagger or bhala. This might be so but in a case of this nature of sudden attack on anenemy by dangerous weapons, one would not have ordinarily expected the assailants to use the blade portion of dagger or the bhala in fulfilment of their aim. Rather the normal conduct would have been to inflict as serious blows as possible with the pointed party of the weapons and to finish the deceased. There is thus inconsistancy in the medical evidence and the eyewitness account given by P. W.2 and P. W.6. 14. The night of occurrence was a dark one. It rained heavily shortly after the occurrence and this may indicate the existence of cloud in the sky at the time of occurrence. P. W.2 and P. W.6 claimed to see the occurrence from a distance of two laggis. This would have necessitated some means of identification. 14. The night of occurrence was a dark one. It rained heavily shortly after the occurrence and this may indicate the existence of cloud in the sky at the time of occurrence. P. W.2 and P. W.6 claimed to see the occurrence from a distance of two laggis. This would have necessitated some means of identification. The prosecution, therefore, came up with the story that while P. W.6 was armed with one torch, two of the respondents, namely, dharamnath and Deocharan, were also possessed of torches. According to P. W, 2, he had identified the assailants in the torch light coming out of the torch in the hand of P. W.6. But, curiously enough, he did not state either in Ext.1 or in his statement before the A. S. I. of Police (P. W.1)about the existence of any torch with P. W.6 or about his identifiyng the assailants in the light of the torch. Similarly P. W.6 did not state before p. W.1 about the there being torch in his hand. No torch was produced before the A. S. I. of Police. In these circumstances, P. W.6, who was examined after P. W.2, come forward with a story that he had identified the assailants in the light of the torch in his hand as also in the hands of the two respondents, named above. Although it was stated in Ext.1 that the respondents emerged from the culvert with torches, the name of either dharamnath of Deocharan was not specifically stated as one having a torch. Then again, in his statement before P. W.1, P. W.2 did not attribute any torch in the hand of respondent Dharamnath undisputedly, all the assailants were known to P. W.2 and P. W.6. There is no evidence to show that any of the assailants had disguised their faces to avoid identification. In such circumstances, one would not have ordinarily expected the culprits to use the torches in their hands, if any, in such a way as to enable P. W.2 or P. W.6 to identify them. Then again, P. W.2 and P. W.6 being also inimical to the assailants, it is somewhat difficult to believe that the assailants, eight in number and variously armed, would have allowed them to see the occurrence only from a distance of two laggis without even touching their body. Then again, P. W.2 and P. W.6 being also inimical to the assailants, it is somewhat difficult to believe that the assailants, eight in number and variously armed, would have allowed them to see the occurrence only from a distance of two laggis without even touching their body. P. W.2 was found taking recourse to memory and denying his earlier statement. Almost similar was the case with P. W.6, who, as stated above, was described by the trial court as a clever sort of witness". Thus the evidence of P. W.2 and P. W.6 appears to be incredible and it fails to inspire confidence. 15. If the evidence of P. W.2 and P. W.6 fails to inspire confidence, as it does, the corroborative evidence adduced in this case, which suffers from infirmities, as pointed out above, cannot take the prosecution case any further. 16. In view of what has been said and discussed above, there is absolutely no justification for interferring with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court and the appeal is without any substance. 17. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.