JUDGMENT 1. - Though this appeal the State of Rajasthan has challenged the acquittal of respondents under sections 302, 148, 364, 201 & 212IPC recorded by the learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment dated 6.3.1980. 2. The case relates to the abduction and murder of Ratan S/o Kana Ram on 23.12.1977. The prosecution story, unfolded in the FIR Ex. P/13 lodged by Kana Ram, father of the deceased on 24.12.1977 a t 10.40 a.m., was that in the previous night Sukhdeo, Ramnath, Ramdeo, Radhakishan and Thana Ram having "lathis" and "Farshis" in their hands entered his house and they forcibly took away his son Ratan from there and thereafter they committed his murder in the "Gowadi". On this report a case under sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC was registered in Police Station, Mundwa. The police inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. On their information, certain incriminating articles were recovered. The postmortem-examination of the body of Ratan was conducted by Dr. Pratap Singh (PW 1). He found as many as 22 injuries on the person of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was severe external haemorrhage which was due to perforation of deciding thorasic arota and injuries on lower lobes of back. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan. 3. The trial Court framed charges under sections 148, 364, 302 or 302/149 & 201 IPC against the accused Radhakishan, Thanchand alias Thanaram, Sukhdeo, Ramnath and Ramdeo. A charge under section 212, IPC was also framed against the accused Ramdeo. All the five accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Dr. Pratap Singh, PW 2 Ram Prasad, PW 3 Puna Ram, PW 4 Dudha Ram, PW 5 Kuna Ram, PW 6 Bhanwaroo, PW 7 Kanwarilal, PW 8 Rukma, PW 9 Kani, PW 10 Magna, PW 11 Bhola, PW 12 Kana Ram and PW 13 Salagram. Accused in their statements denied having committed any offence. Four accused also pleaded alibi. It was stated that due to the enmity they have been falsely implicated in the case. They examined DW 1 Jhumar, DW 2 Madan, DW 3 Bhanwarlal, DW 4 Ramakishan, and DW 5 Kishna Ram. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel came to the conclusion that Ratan had met homicidal death. It was stated that due to the enmity they have been falsely implicated in the case. They examined DW 1 Jhumar, DW 2 Madan, DW 3 Bhanwarlal, DW 4 Ramakishan, and DW 5 Kishna Ram. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel came to the conclusion that Ratan had met homicidal death. He, however, did not believe the prosecution story that accused were the authors of the injuries found on the person of Ratan. It was also not believed that accused had abducted Ratan from his house. Eventually, he acquitted all the accused. During the pendency of the appeal, respondents Ramnath and Ramdeo have died. The appeal against them, therefore, has abated. 4. The contention of Mr. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant State is that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of Dudha Ram (PW 4) and Kana Ram (PW 12). According to him, the statements of these two witnesses are trustworthy and the direct evidence finds corroboration from the recovery of the knife and the Dhoti made at the instance of the two accused persons. He submits that the appeal should be accepted and all the four respondents be convicted. 5. As against this, Mr. Choudhary submits that the trial Court has closely scrutinised the evidence and has come to a finding that the witnesses are not reliable and this Court should not interfere in the finding of the trial Court. 6. We have bestowed our consideration to the arguments advanced in the case. Dr. Pratap Singh (PW 1) has deposed that there were as many as 22 external injuries on the person of Ratan and many of them were incised wounds. He has further deposed that injuries Nos. 1 & 2 found on the thorasic region of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the expert opinion of the medical officer. It is fully established that Ratan had suffered the injuries and he had died of those injuries. He, thus, met homicidal death. 7. Now, the principal question for determination is whether on the basis of evidence produced in the case the accused persons could be convicted. The evidence led by the prosecution can be placed in the following groups:- 1. It is fully established that Ratan had suffered the injuries and he had died of those injuries. He, thus, met homicidal death. 7. Now, the principal question for determination is whether on the basis of evidence produced in the case the accused persons could be convicted. The evidence led by the prosecution can be placed in the following groups:- 1. The direct evidence contained in the statements of Dudha Ram (PW 4), Kana Ram (PW 12), Bhanwaroo (PW 6), Kanwarilal (PW 7), Rukma (PW 8) and Kani (PW 9). 2. The circumstantial evidence that the accused were seen having deadly weapons in their hands in the night of occurrence. 3. Extra-judicial confession of the accused said to have been made before PW 10 and PW 11. 4. Recovery of the blood stained knife at the instance of accused Sukhdeo and recovery of blood stained Dhoti at the instance of accused Thanchand. 5. There was hostility between the deceased and the accused party. 8. Coming to the direct evidence, the occurrence is said to have taken place at two places. The first part of the occurrence is deposed by PW 4 Dudha Ram and PW 12 Kana Ram who are uncle and father of the deceased. The second part of the occurrence i.e. the deceased gave beatings was sought to be proved through the statements of PW 6 Kuna Ram, PW 7 Kanwarilal, PW 8 Rukma and PW 9 Kani. 9. All the four witnesses regarding the second part of the occurrence have turned hostile and they have not deposed in favour of the prosecution. All these 4 persons are the neighbours of the "Gowadi" where the deceased was found lying dead. According to these witnesses only two persons were the assailants but they could not be identified by them. Nothing has appeared in the cross-examination of the witnesses as to hold that they had been won over by the accused and they had concealed the truth. There is no other material on record about the second part of the occurrence. 10. The first part of the occurrence, as already stated, is deposed by Dudha Ram (PW 4) and Kana Ram (PW 12). The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out the material discrepancies appearing in the statements of these two witnesses as also their unnatural conduct. The discrepancies are on many pointers. 10. The first part of the occurrence, as already stated, is deposed by Dudha Ram (PW 4) and Kana Ram (PW 12). The learned Sessions Judge has pointed out the material discrepancies appearing in the statements of these two witnesses as also their unnatural conduct. The discrepancies are on many pointers. The important discrepancy is with regard to the opening of the door i.e. who opened the door. According to PW 4 Dudha Ram, the door was opened by him and Kana Ram whereas according to Kana Ram (PW 12), the door was opened by Ratna Ram. The other significant discrepancy is on the point of threatening by the accused. According to Dudha Ram (PW 4) when the accused took Ratna from the house, they threatened them that if they went out, they would be killed. However, this fact is not deposed by Kana Ram (PW 12). Then, Kana Ram (PW 12) has deposed that the accused persons remained sitting outside his house throughout the night, which fact has not been deposed by Dudha Rain (PW 4). Thus, there are material discrepancies in the statements of these witnesses. 11. The conduct of these two witnesses, who are none else than father and uncle of the deceased, has been far from natural. It has not come in their statements that they tried to intervene in the act of abduction of Ratan by the accused. On the contrary, Dudha Ram (PW 4) has deposed that they did not prevent Ratan from going out and they did not try to rescue him. Kana Ram (PW 12) also has not deposed that any attempt was made by them to resist the accused from entering the house or in taking Ratan by them. Dudha Ram (PW 4) has also deposed that they did not shout for help by climbing on the roof. This is really strange that the father and uncle were seeing that their child was being abducted by the accused having deadly weapons yet. They did not come to his rescue nor did they shout for help. The conduct of both the witnesses has been most unnatural. It is also significant to point out that the witnesses did open the door on hearing call of Sukhdeo. Both the witnesses have admitted that there was long standing enmity between them and the accused party. They did not come to his rescue nor did they shout for help. The conduct of both the witnesses has been most unnatural. It is also significant to point out that the witnesses did open the door on hearing call of Sukhdeo. Both the witnesses have admitted that there was long standing enmity between them and the accused party. It cannot be believed that in the back,ground of long standing enmity, the witnesses would open the door in the dead of night. This is not the case of the prosecution witnesses that they had not identified the voice of the person who had called them. Both these witnesses have clearly deposed that they had identified the voice which was of accused Sukhdeo. Even if some compromise had been arrived at between the parties yet the witnesses could not take the risk of opening the gate in the dead of night. In our considered opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly disbelieved both these witnesses. It is evident that these witnesses have implicated the accused persons because of the long standing enmity. 12. Poona Ram (PW 3) has deposed that at about 11.30 p.m. when he was going to some village, he had seen the accused persons having axes, knives etc. in their hands going towards their houses. Poona Ram is the real brother of Kana Ram (PW 12). According to Kana Ram and Dudha Ram, the incident of entering of the accused in their house took place at about 12.00 or 1.00 a.m. whereas Poona Ram has deposed to have seen the accused returning to their houses 11.30 p.m. If Poona Ram's statement is believed, the abduction took place before 11.30 p.m. which is not the case of the two witnesses. Obviously, Poona Ram has given false statement. It is also relevant to state that Poona Ram was interrogated by the police two months after the occurrence. Even in that statement it was not stated that as to what weapons the accused were having. The late interrogation of the witness by the police without an explanation goes to show that he has been introduction just to corroborate the prosecution story. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. 13. The evidence regarding extra-judicial confession which was sought to be proved through PW 10 Magna & PW 11 Bhola has fallen flat. Both these witnesses have turned hostile. 14. No reliance can be placed on his testimony. 13. The evidence regarding extra-judicial confession which was sought to be proved through PW 10 Magna & PW 11 Bhola has fallen flat. Both these witnesses have turned hostile. 14. Coming to the recoveries of the knife and Dhoti at the disclosure statement made by accused Sukhdeo and Thanchand respectively, it may be stated that this piece of evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence of murder. The recovery of the blood stained articles is corroborative piece of evidence which may be used to corroborate the other evidence. The conviction cannot be based on the basis of mere recovery of the blood stained articles. More so, when the Serologist Report Ex. P/35 does not indicate that the blood found on the knife and the Dhoti was of the same group which was that of the deceased. The group of the blood stains could not be determined for various reasons. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in holding that on the basis of the recovery of the weapon and the Dhoti it could not be inferred that the accused had taken part in the occurrence of murder of Ratana. 15. The last piece of evidence consists of the enmity between the complainant party and the accused party. The parties have been on inimical terms for decades. Dudha Ram and Kanaram were convicted for the murder of Lakha who belonged to the accused party. It appears that the witnesses have falsely implicated the accused on account of long standing enmity. It is true that offences are committed due to enmity but at the same time it is also not uncommon that false cases are launched because of enmity. We have ourselves scrutinised the evidence. The prosecution evidence is not worthy of credence. Even two views are not possible on the evidence produced in the case. It has been held by the Apex Court time and again that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on re-appraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal. It could not be shown to us that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence is patently illegal and wholly untenable. It could not be shown to us that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence is patently illegal and wholly untenable. No case of interference is, thus, made out. 16. Consequently, this appeal is devoid of merit which is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******