A. R. TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur in Criminal Case No. 189183 on 4/7/1985 thereby acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 326, 325 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts as are relevant for the disposal of this appeal arc that Chaturbhuj (P. W. 1), and Balkrishna (P. W. 2), the son of P. W. 1 were in their house on 19. 3. 1982 when the respondents called them out and the respondent Purshottam started assaulting Chaturbhuj, Respondent Munshikhan attacked with Farsi whereas the other respondents attacked with lathis. On shouts and shrieks Balkrishna also came out who was assaulted by respondents Dineshchandra and Shivnarayan by fist-blows. Certain persons intervened. Chaturbhuj lodged the report at the Police Station, marked in this case as Ex. P11. Chaturbhuj was got medically examined and the injuries reports and Ex, P/6, P/8, P/9 and Ex. P110. Ex. P/s is the X-Ray plate. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed. The respondents were charged -under Sections 147,326,325 and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty. On trial, the Court held that the offences are not proved and hence, the respondents were acquitted of all the charges leveled against them. The State has preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) WE have heard Shri Chauhan, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State and Shri M. A. Bohara, learned counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) SHRI Chauhan has urged that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are vitiated and the conclusion-reached by the Trial Court is not warranted from the evidence adduced in this case. The judgment, urged the counsel, deserves to be reversed and the respondents deserve to be convicted of the offences with which they were charged, and appropriate sentence be awarded to them. Shri Vohara on the other hand, submitted that the respondent Purshottam lodged a report against Chaturbhuj and Balkrishna in respect of the same incident an according to him, the complainant party was the aggressor. In view of this, there is no infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court and the respondents have been rightly acquitted of the charges leveled against them. In view of this, there is no infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court and the respondents have been rightly acquitted of the charges leveled against them. The view, urges the counsel, has been correctly taken and this is the correct view needing no interference in an appeal against acquittal. He, therefore; submitted that the judgment of acquittal deserves to be maintained. ( 5 ) THE acquittal recorded in the case, is backed by the under noted conclusions reached by the Trial Court: a) There are material contradictions as the version in Court is at variance with the account given in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P. C. as also in the First Information Report (Ex. P/1 ). b) There is no allegation about respondent accused Pushpabai in Ex. P/1. Her name has thus been introduced latter with no explanation worth the name for omission therein. c) It is a case of fight on both the sides. Counter case is pending. The prosecution has failed to prove as to which party was the aggressor. d) The allegation of assault is not corroborated by medical evidence. e) The parties are inimically disposed to each other in the face of other litigation of civil and other nature. f) The evidence adduced in the case does not inspire confidence. ( 6 ) WE are aware of the limited scope available to us in an appeal against acquittal. The Apex Court in Tota Singh and another v. State Of Punjab has pointed out the periphery in the following words:the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court; in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below ist such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a possible one the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an orders of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. ( 7 ) APPLYING the aforesaid criteria, we proceed to examine the merits of the matter. The First. Information Report (Ex. P/i) about the incident was lodged by the injured Chaturbhuj (P. W. 1 ). The presence of one Onkar Jat is recited in that. Yet this person was not examined. It cannot be disputed that this independent person was a material witness for the purpose of unfolding the prosecution story. Non-examination of such a witness demonstrably delivers dent, almost beyond repair and leaves lacuna flatulently fatal for the prosecution. The true genesis and origin of the occurrence was thus allowed to remain devilishly esoteric. There was no injury report as regards P. W. 2 Balkrishna, the son of P. W. 1. No one can be permitted to pollute or crankle simple facts. True facts need to be truthfully told. In The State of U. P. and another v. Jaggo alias Jagdish and others, it is held that:ramesh is the person with whom Lalu was talking at the time of the alleged occurrence. Ramesh was mentioned in the First Information Report. It is true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witness whose evidence is essential to the unfolding of the narrative should be called. This salutary principle in criminal trials has been stressed by this Court in the case of Habeeb v. The State of Hyderabad, 1954 SCR 475 = ( AIR 1954 SC 51 ), for eliciting the truth. The absence of Ramesh from the prosecution evidence seriously affects the truth of the prosecution case. ( 8 ) WE have scrutinised the evidence perspicaciously in an effort to ascertain if there was any infirmity in the approach or conclusions. P. W. 3 Sabai Singh, whose testimony is binding on the prosecution, had deposed that he saw Purshottam and Chaturbhuj fighting and that the other accused persons were not present there. ( 8 ) WE have scrutinised the evidence perspicaciously in an effort to ascertain if there was any infirmity in the approach or conclusions. P. W. 3 Sabai Singh, whose testimony is binding on the prosecution, had deposed that he saw Purshottam and Chaturbhuj fighting and that the other accused persons were not present there. This cogently showed that First Information Report did not present true version; that atleast as many as persons were falsely implicated; that P. W. 2 Balkrishna, the son of P. W. 1 was purposefully introduced as an eye-witness as was evident even by absence of the injury report; that Raghunandan Vyas was not forwarded as a witness; that P. W. 3 noticed no injury on the head of P. W. 1. P. W. 4 Rameshchandra was declared hostile. P. W. 12 Jankilal, though not hostile, did not support the version as narrated by P. W. 1 or P. W. 2 of the First Information Report. P. W. 1, emphatically asserted that he saw P. W. 1 and respondent Purshottam fighting with each other and lying on the ground. P. W. 5 Onkar stated that respondent Purshottam had told P. W. 1 as to why he was torturing him P. W. 8 Kailashchandra too was silent on the point as to who had initiated the attack. Initially the report was not even recorded in terms of Section 154 of the Cr. P. C. The Roznamcha report (Ex. P/1) later on became the basis of registration of the case vide Ex. Pill as deposed to by P. W. 12 Ramsingh. True story remained untold. We find the flaws. We notice the crude acts of embrocation directed on ingrained dirt. The witnesses have not spoken whole truth. And half truth is worse than a total lie. ( 9 ) IN such-kind of evidence, it cannot be held that the approach made by the Trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the conclusion recorded is such which could not have been reached by the Court acting reasonably and judiciously. In our view, no fault can be found and there apparently is no vitiation. The view taken by the Court below is palpably plausible one. No valid and sufficient ground consequently exists to reverse the acquittal. The matter presented by the prosecution is meretricious. In our view, no fault can be found and there apparently is no vitiation. The view taken by the Court below is palpably plausible one. No valid and sufficient ground consequently exists to reverse the acquittal. The matter presented by the prosecution is meretricious. Needless to say that the Criminal Case No. 812/82, if still pending shall be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in that case without in any way being influenced by this judgment. ( 10 ) EXCULPATION is engrained. Yet a word more. With deep concern, we should like to high light. The correct procedure required to be followed in the face of counter reports and counter cases. In Girriappa's case3 the Divisional Bench very fittingly observed thus:it is improper for the Police to prosecute at the same time two counter cases in regard to the same occurrence, one of which must be false and it is improper also and disrespectful to the Court and for the public prosecutor to conduct both the cases in the Sessions Court knowing that one must be false. Such counter case cannot both be prosecuted honestly either by the Police or the Public Prosecutor. The powers of investigation given to the Police by the Court arc given for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. Single Bench decision of this Court in Rajendra Singh v. State of M. P. 4, approved by us as laying down the correct law in a recently delivered judgment-Criminal Appeal No. 129191 (Mishrilal and others v. State of M. P.) decided on 3/9/1992- held as under:having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, in my opinion when two case arise out of the same incident, it is always desirable in the interest of justice that both cases are heard one after the other by the same presiding Judge and judgments arc delivered after completion of trial of both cases to avoid any possible contingency of conflicting findings. The Supreme Court illumined the path in Nathulals case (Nathulal and others v. State of U. P. and another) with regard to fair procedure to be followed in such cases in the following terms: We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross- cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross-cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter, he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must, thereafter, dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. Law is thus, clear and there is no tenebrosity about it. The direction serves as a scutellum against the shortcut-which is often a wrong cut-of charge-sheeting both the parties of the same incident an points the procedure to be followed to over come the sluttery. We did record our concern in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 129/91 as well. But we have come across yet another case fraught with same infirmity. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shajapur, despite noticing the pendency of counter Case No. 812/82, has done it again and this has prompted us to reiterate and ratiocinate in this piquancy so that things are set right sooner than later. It cannot be disputed that it is only on simultaneous disposal of such cases as mandated that any Court acting reasonably and judiciously, can determine as to which side has put on the wimple and whose version is liable to be termed as apocryphal. Yet this is not being followed and despite the authoritative direction contained in Nathulals case (supra), we have been coming across number of cases wherein the trial is being concluded contrary to this position. Needless to say that at times this results in unmerited acquittals on criticism about unfairness in procedure. It may be noted that even Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The emphasis is thus on adherence to the procedure and this has been indicated as above. ( 11 ) LAW, to be just and fair has to be seen devoid of flaw. It has to keep promise to justice and - it cannot stay petrified and sit nonchantly. It is apt to recall what was so superbly said in Jennision v. Backer. The law should not be seen to sit limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope. It has to keep promise to justice and - it cannot stay petrified and sit nonchantly. It is apt to recall what was so superbly said in Jennision v. Backer. The law should not be seen to sit limply, while those who defy it go free, and those who seek its protection lose hope. And it cannot be disputed that this hope can be sustained only if proper investigation on counter reports is undeviatingly undertaken right from the cradle and fair procedure in trail in the event of counter case is assiduously adhered to, Manner, is as important as matter. This is a long and short story of procedure and procedural safeguards. Well defined path has to be followed to reach the intended destination. In the face of counter accusations the matter gets intimately inosculated and it becomes difficult to discerp. The direction thus serves as a linchpin and meliorate the matter in its march to the goal of Justice. ( 12 ) WE, therefore, direct that a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Registrar forthwith for being circulates amongst the members of the higher judicial service in general as also to the learned Judge concerned in particular wherever he may be posted at present. Appeal dismissed. .