JUDGMENT This appeal under the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7/10 August 1980 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 454/ 79 arising out of the order of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, in Sessions case No. 94/78. 2. The prosecution case was that there was an election for the post of Sarpanch of village Dadvi on 5-2-1978 in which A/3 and some others were the candidates amongst the deceased HarijanPamabhai. A/3 withdrew from election and the deceased Pumubhui was declared elected as Sarpanch of the village. Prior to his election there was a background of strained relationship between Pamabhai and the party of accused persons. But when Pamabhai won the election the hostility aggravated between them. Pamabhai having some apprehensions, he had asked forand was provided protection of SRP Party headed by a constable Sakha Ram. Since the bitterness continued even after election another police party headed by Head Constable Man Singh was also posted in the village since 11-3-1978. But hostility continued between them. The deceased filed a Criminal Case against the accused persons on 10-2-1978 in which bail bonds were taken from the four accused on 15-4-1978. It is said that in the morning of 16-4-l978 at about 6.30 A.M. at village Dadvi when the deceased Pamabhai had gone to ease himself in the pit of a dry stream adjoining his wadi land, accused Nos. I and 2 armed with axes, accused No. 3 armed with stick and accused No. 4 armed with knife attacked Pamabhai and assaulted him. The two sons of the deceascd Pamabhai, Mangabhai (PW-4) and Ramabhai (PW-5) who were ploughing their nearby fields heard the cries of their father. Both of them rushed to the place of occurrence and saw accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulting with axes while accused Nos. 3 & 4 were standing there. On seeing the PWs. 4 & 5 approaching to the place of occurrence, all the four accused persons escaped from the place of occurrence. Shortly thereafter Pamabhai succumbed to his injuries. Mangabhai (PW-4) the Son of the deceased sent Dalabhai (PW-10) to inform the eldest brother Govindbhai (PW-8) about the occurrence and to lodge First Information Report in the police station. 4 & 5 approaching to the place of occurrence, all the four accused persons escaped from the place of occurrence. Shortly thereafter Pamabhai succumbed to his injuries. Mangabhai (PW-4) the Son of the deceased sent Dalabhai (PW-10) to inform the eldest brother Govindbhai (PW-8) about the occurrence and to lodge First Information Report in the police station. When Dalabhai did not return back for quite some time then Vajubhai was sent on a motor-cycle to inform Govindbhai Vajubhai took Govindbhai on a motor-cycle to the police station where the first information report Ext. 33 was lodged by Govindbhai Dr. Hirpara, Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Jamkandorana performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased pamabhai and as per his post-mortem report following injuries were found on the person of the deceased. "1. An incised wound on the top of the head transversely. Extending from left to right of the parietal eminence with both parietal bones fractured. Its size was 6" x 1" x 1". 2. An incised wound 3" x 2" 2" on the left sygomatic temporal region transversely from the lateral angle of the left eye up to the front of the left ear. The left eye ball was perforated. 3. A liniar incision 5"x 1/12" x 1/12 on the left side neck, 2" above supra sternal notch. It was encircling the left side of the neck. 4. A punctured wound 2/1/2" x ½" x 5" on the abdomen 1/1/2" below the umbilicus extending from the midline to the left side transversely. The loop of the intestine has come out through the wound. 5. A punctured wound 1/1/2" x 4" at mid clavicular line I" below the level of umbilicus. 6. A pnctured wound ½" x ½" at the level of the umbilicus 2" to the left of the midline. 3. At the trial all the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. The learned trial Judge on evaluation of the prosecution evidence recorded the order of acquittal of all the four accused persons. 6. A pnctured wound ½" x ½" at the level of the umbilicus 2" to the left of the midline. 3. At the trial all the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. The learned trial Judge on evaluation of the prosecution evidence recorded the order of acquittal of all the four accused persons. On appeals by the State the High Court maintained the acquittal of A-3 and A-4 giving them the benefit of doubt but reversed the order of acquittal as regards A-1 and A-2 and holding them guilty for the murder of Pamabhai convicted both of them under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C and sentenced both of them to undergo life imprisonment. This appeal has been directed against the said judgment. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the trial Court had given cogent reasons in recording the order of acquittal of all the four accused persons and had taken a very reasonable view. It has therefore been contended that it was not proper on the part of the High Court interfere with the well-reasoned order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. We have perused the evidence and heard the learned counsel for the parties. The evidence of PW-4 Mangabhai and his brother Ramabhai PW-5, goes to show that when they were ploughing their field on the date and time of occurrence they heard the cries of their father from the nearby field, both of them rushed to Vonkla, the place of occurrence and saw the accused 1 and 2 giving axe blows to their deceased father, A-4 is said to be standing there with a knife and A-3 with a stick but A-3 and A-4 were not seen assaulting the deceased. The evidence of Mangabhai (PW-4) further goes to show that he had given the names of the four accused persons to Dalabhai to be the assailants of his father in order to lodge first information report. Govindbhai lodged the first information report but it does not contain the name of A-3 as one of the persons taking part in, the assault. But the evidence of Dhalabhai goes to show that he had not given the names of any of the assailants by Mangabhai nor he had conveyed the names of any of these accused persons to Govindbhai to be the assailants of Pamabhai deceased. But the evidence of Dhalabhai goes to show that he had not given the names of any of the assailants by Mangabhai nor he had conveyed the names of any of these accused persons to Govindbhai to be the assailants of Pamabhai deceased. In view of this evidence the learned trial Judge took a reasonable view that it is not possible to accept the testimony of Govindbhai that the names of the assailants were told to him by Dhalabhai. But the High Court has not accepted this reasoning and has taken a view that unless the names were given by Dhalabhai, it was not possible for Govindbhai to mention the names of the assailants in the first information report. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the High Court cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it has, not been disputed that there was enmity between the accused persons and the deceased Pamabhai and it was for this reason that two police parties was stationed in the village. It appears that when the names of the assailants could not be known, the informant Govindbhai considered that there could be no other person to assault and kill his father except the accused persons who were on inimical terms with them. But this aspect of the matter seems to have lost sight of by the High Court while accepting the evidence of Govindbhai and proceed on the assumption that unless Govindbhai was told the names of the assailants he could not have mentioned the names of accused persons in the FIR. Such a view is not in accord with the evidence on record and therefore it has to be held as wholly unreasonable. 5. According to the prosecution after the police party stationed in the village was informed, it reached the place of occurrence where they are said to have been given the names of the assailants. In support of this part of the prosecution story, Head Constable Sakharam and Head Constable Mansing and Const. Rameshwar were examined. The evidence of Head Constable Sakharam was first recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and according to the evidence of the Dy. Supt. In support of this part of the prosecution story, Head Constable Sakharam and Head Constable Mansing and Const. Rameshwar were examined. The evidence of Head Constable Sakharam was first recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and according to the evidence of the Dy. Supt. of Police, Sakharam Head Constable did not give out the names of the accused persons as the assailants of his father but later on it appears that he made a police statement stating the names of the accused persons as assailants of Pamabhai. Mansing Head Constable and Constable Rameshwar did not state that the names of the assailants were given to them by any of the two sons of the deceased. In these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to accept the evidence of the two sons PWs. 4 and 5 of the deceased to the effect that they had seen the assailants assaulting their father. If in fact they had seen the assailants they must have told the names to Dhalabhai who was sent to inform to Govindbhai the eldest son of the deceased to go and lodge the report in police station. In any case they would have told the names of the accused to Head Constables Sakha Ram. Man Singh or to Constable Rameshwar who had arrived on the place of occurrence. But as seen above they were not so informed by PWs. 4 and 5. In view of these facts and circumstances the learned Sessions Judge had taken the view that the prosecution evidence could not be accepted in bringing home the guilt against the accused persons or any of them. In our view, this is one of the possible views that could be taken on the evidence on record. No doubt it is well settled that the powers of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. If a finding reached by the trial Court cannot be said to be an unreasonable finding, then the appellate Court should not disturb that finding. If a finding reached by the trial Court cannot be said to be an unreasonable finding, then the appellate Court should not disturb that finding. It is also settled law that if two views are possible on the evidence on record and the trial Court has taken one of such views it is not for the appellate Court to evaluate the evidence and take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court. The High Court has re-evaluated the evidence on record and has substituted its own view in holding that the accused persons were responsible for causing the death of Pamabhai which is not supportable from the material on record. In these facts and circumstances, in our opinion, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the findings recorded by the trial Court and the High Court has fallen in grave error in 6. In these facts and circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the said conviction and sentence awarded to accused I and 2 and acquit them of the offence charged with. The bail bonds of the appel lants shall stand discharged. Appeal allowed. For Citation:  1995 Cri. LJ 3607