JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents. 2. The facts of the prosecution case in short are that one FIR Ex.D.2 has been lodged on 6.6.86 by Madan Lal son of deceased at Police Station Thana Sadar, Bundi at 8.40 a.m. to the effect that at about 6.00 a.m, one Dakhan, anti of informant was abusing the mother of informant, his father Bhanwarlal, deceased was sitting at the plate form of Shivalaya and requested Gopi to intervene and see that Dakhan should stop abusing. At that point of time, accused Ramswaroop, his sons Ram Kalyan and Hiralal came running from their house and Ramswaroop inflicted lathi blow on the head of deceased. Deceased Bhanwarlal fell down. When the informant rushed and tried to save his father, on the way in front of house of Ramswaroop. Dakhan and Ram Kalyan have caught hold him and gave beating to him. Even when Rarnswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal returned from place 'A' to 'B' in the site plan, they also gave beating to him. On that report, the case was registered for the offences u/Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 341 & 323, IPC. Thereafter, the deceased expired and the offence u/Section 302 Indian Penal Code was added. Post mortem was got conducted, site plan was prepared, statements a/Section 161, Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of investigation, challan has been filed by the police against all these five accused persons. Accused Ramswaroop was charged for the offences u/Sections 302 & 323, IPC. Co-accused Ram Kalyan, Hiralal were charged for the offences under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 323, IPC. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statements of accused persons have been recorded u/Section 313, Cr.P.C. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and on perusal of material on record, all these accused persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court mainly on the ground of inconsistency in the statements. 3. Learned Counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that after acquittal by the Trial Court, the High Court should not interfere on re appreciation of the facts. 3. Learned Counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that after acquittal by the Trial Court, the High Court should not interfere on re appreciation of the facts. He placed reliance on the decision in case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 )=III (1996) CCR 16 (SC) ; Dhanna v. State of M.P., (1996) 10 SCC 70) ; and Awadhesh and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1988) 2 SCC 557 ) . 4. It is true and we agree with the submission of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the accused respondents that on re appreciation, if the possible view has been taken by the Trial Court, the High Court should not interfere with the judgment of Trial Court in cases of acquittal of cases, but, when the finding is perverse and contrary to material on record, the High Court has certainly power to interfere in such findings which are perverse and contrary to the material on record. 5. The consistent case of prosecution is that at about 6.00 a.m. while Dakhan, wife of Ramswaroop abusing Ram Kanwari, wife of deceased Bhanwar Lal, deceased was sitting at the plate form of Shivalaya shown at place 'C' in the site plan Ex.P 15, he was requesting Gopal and Kishore to intervene and stop Dakhan, one of the accused, she should not abuse Ran Kanwari, at that point of time, Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal came out from their house, shown near place 'B' and gave beating to deceased. The first lathi blow has been given by Ramswaroop on the head of deceased. Bhanwar Lal fell down and all the three persons gave beating to him. When informant and his mother came out and make efforts to save Bhanwar Lal, they were stopped at place 'B' by Dakhan and Ram Kalyan and they gave beating to informant and his mother. Informant Madan Lal was medically examined. Three injuries were found on the body of informant Madan Lal. In postmortem Ex.P 13, three injuries were found on the person of deceased which are as under : 1. Lacerated would 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on left side of sculp in parietal region. 2. Lacerated would 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" on right of sculp in occipital region. 3. In postmortem Ex.P 13, three injuries were found on the person of deceased which are as under : 1. Lacerated would 1" x 1/2" x 1/2" on left side of sculp in parietal region. 2. Lacerated would 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" on right of sculp in occipital region. 3. Bruise 3" x 1/2" (=) on left side of chest in memorial region." In the opinion of Doctor, the cause of death is head injury and injury to left lung. Learned Trial Court has doubted the case of prosecution and also the statements of eve-witnesses PW 7 Gopal, PW 8 Madan Lal, PW 9 Ram Kanwari and PW 10 Kishore. The statement of PW 7 Gopal has been disbelieved on the ground that in the statement u/Section 161, Cr.P.C. he has attributed head injury to Ramswaroop but in Court, he has improved and has stated that Ram Kalyan and Hiralal have also inflicted lathi blows to deceased Bhanwar Lal. The Trial Court has disbelieved the statement of PW 8 Madan Lal also on the same ground that in the statement u/Section 161, Cr.P.C., he stated that Ramswaroop has inflicted lathi blow the head of deceased. He fell down and then also inflicted some lathi blows when he tried to intervene. He has been stopped by Ram Kalyan and Hiralal and they gave beating to him, but in Court, he levelled allegation of causing injury to deceased against all three accused persons viz. Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal and stated number of injuries more than found on the person of deceased at the time of post mortem. The Trial Court has discarded the statement of PW 9 Ram Kanwari on the ground that she has not specifically stated that how many injuries have been caused by Ram Kalyan and Dakhan and she is not sure whether any injury is caused on the body of injured Madan except the injury on head. The Trial Court has discarded the statement of PW 10 Kishore on the ground that in the statement a/Section 161, Cr.P.C., he levelled the allegation only against Ramswaroop that he inflicted head injury to deceased Bhanwar Lal, but in Court, he levelled allegation against Ram Kalyan and Hiralal also that they inflicted injury to Bhanwar Lal on the head and on the chest respectively. 6. PW 7 Gopal neighbour of accused party. 6. PW 7 Gopal neighbour of accused party. He is consistent in his statement u/Section 161, Cr.P.C. that while he alongwith Kishore (PW 10) were sitting in front of the house of Kishore, which is just near the Shiv Temple, Ramswaroop and his sons Ram Kalyan and Hiralal armed with lathies came and gave beating to Bhanwar Lal and specifically head injury is attributed to Ramswaroop. In the statement in Court, he only attributed injuries to Hiralal and Ram Kalvan. Even he is consistent on the fact that while Madan Lal and his mother came and tried to save Bhanwar Lal from these person, they were caught hold by Dakhan and Ram Kanya and Dakhan and Ram Kanya have given beating to Madan Lal and his mother. Similarly, if we see the site plan, the presence of Kishore shown at place 'D' just on the road side and near the Shiv Temple and place 'A'. He has supported the case of prosecution that while he was sitting with Gopal (PW 7) in front of his house which is just near the Shiv Temple and place of incident, Ram Kalvan, Hiralal and Ramswaroop armed with lathies came and gave beating to Bhanwar Lal. Ramswaroop gave one lathi blow on the head of deceased while informant and his mother came to save Bhanwar Lal, Dakhan and Ram Kanya stopped them on the way and gave beating to them. 7. PW 8 is son of deceased and in site plan Ex. P-15, the house of deceased is adjacent to house of accused and thereafter the house of Kishore and across the road, is Shiv Temple. Place of incident is 'A'. 7. PW 8 is son of deceased and in site plan Ex. P-15, the house of deceased is adjacent to house of accused and thereafter the house of Kishore and across the road, is Shiv Temple. Place of incident is 'A'. The case of prosecution that while Dakhan was abusing mother of Madan Lal (PW 8), Bhanwar Lal, deceased, father of PW 8 approached to Kishore and Gopal who were sitting in front of the house of Kishore and requested to intervene and stop Dakhan who is abusing his wife, while Dakhan was abusing, looking to the location of house of deceased and accused, the only inference can be drawn that every member of the house was aware of the fact that Dakhan is abusing and any incident can take place specially when PW 8 and PW 9 who happened to be son and wife of deceased knowing well that deceased is going out of the house to complaint against Dakhan who is abusing Ram Kanwari, wife of deceased. They came out from the house and when deceased was requested Kishore (PW 10) and Gopal (PW 7), accused Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal came out from the house and gave beating. One lathi blow on the head has been inflicted by Ramswaroop, and if we see the site plan Ex.P.15, no doubt is left that person at place 'B' can see the incident which is happened at place W. Therefore, merely because they were stopped in front of the house of accused persons, does not make any difference. The Trial Court has wrongly doubted the credibility of PW 8 Madan Lal. His house is just next to place (B). The fact also cannot be overlooked that incident has been taken place at 6.00 a.m. in the month of June, the presence of PW 7 Gopal, PW 8 Madal Lal, PW 9 Ram Kanwari and PW 10 Kishore cannot be said as chance witnesses. 8. PW 8 Madan Lal and PW 9 Ram Kanwari of course are partisan witnesses. PW 8 Madal Lal is son and PW 9 Ram Kanwari is wife of deceased, but merely because they are related to the deceased, their credibility cannot be discarded only on the ground of relation specially considering the facts and circumstances at the time of incident. 9. PW 8 Madal Lal is son and PW 9 Ram Kanwari is wife of deceased, but merely because they are related to the deceased, their credibility cannot be discarded only on the ground of relation specially considering the facts and circumstances at the time of incident. 9. The incident took place at about 6.00 a.m. Immediately the FIR has been lodged at 8.40 a.m. and the distance between place of incident and Police Station is 18 kms. The accused persons are named in the FIR. 10. The version of the eye-witnesses is corroborated by the medical report. The postmortem has been conducted by Dr. B.L. Chobisa (PW 6). He has conducted the post mortem and found about 8 injuries. All injuries are with blunt weapon and all injuries are ante mortem in nature. In his opinion, the cause of death is head injury and injury at left lung. The prosecution eye witnesses also consistent that deceased was complaining Kishore and Gopal near Shiv Temple shown at Ex. P.15, accused Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal came armed with lathies and given beating to deceased. The head injury is specifically attributed to Ramswaroop since beginning. 11. In case of Dhanna v. State of M.P., (1996) 10 SCC 79 ) , the matter has time and again considered by their Lordships that in what cases, the High Court should interfere in case of acquittal. In para 11, their Lordships have observed as under : "No doubt, the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether the appeal is against conviction or acquittal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Appellate Court has to bear in mind : first, that there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. The second is, every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the Trial Court acquitted him, he would retain that benefit in the Appellate Court also. Thus, the Appellate Court in appeals against acquittals has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed." 12. Keeping in view the site plan Ex. Thus, the Appellate Court in appeals against acquittals has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed." 12. Keeping in view the site plan Ex. P.15 wherein the place of incident, house of accused, house of deceased, house of Gopal (PW 7), and house of Kishore has been shown. The incident took place at 6.00 am. Dakhan, co-accused, wife of Ramswaroop abusing to Ram Kanwari, wife of deceased, deceased came out of the house and while he was complaining and requested to Gopal and Kishore, to stop Dakhan, who is abusing his wife, who are the next door neighbour of accused, is a normal human conduct. Their presence is natural and while Dakhan was abusing to wife of deceased and deceased went out to complaint against her, the normal human conduct that members of the family of deceased will follow him and will see that no harm should be caused to him by the accused party. He saw Kishore and Gopal who were sitting in front of the house of Kishore, at that point of time, accused Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal came out of the house armed with lathies and gave beating to him. Madan Lal (PW 8) son of deceased and Ram Kanwari, wife of deceased, tried to save him, the house of accused persons is between the house of deceased and place of incident, obviously, those ladies were also standing outside the house and were in a position to stop Madan Lal (PW 8) and Ram Kanwari (PW 9), (PW 10). Not only they stopped, but gave beating. PW 8 Madan Lal sustained injuries. He was medically examined and injuries were found on his body. Injury report is Ex. P.12. Thus, he is not only the eye witness, but he is injured eye witness. It is true that in his statement u/Section 161, Cr.P.C., no specific injury is attributed to Ram Kalyan and Hiralal, but he was clarified the factual aspect in Court, merely on the basis of such clarification in the Court, his credibility should not be doubted specially considering the fact that his prance is natural, his conduct is natural, his version is corroborated by the medical report. After the arrest of accused persons, lathies were also recovered at their instance. 13. It is true that when there is a possible reasonable view which has been taken by the Trial Court, the High Court should not interfere in the acquittal, but when the finding is perverse and in the name of benefit of doubt, the Trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons, it is the bounden duty of this Court to interfere in such cases. The doubt should not be for the sake, of doubt, it should be a reasonable doubt, then only the benefit of doubt can be given to accused persons. Therefore, we are of the view that accused Ramswaroop has caused injury and the death of deceased B hanwar Lal is a result of injuries caused by Ramswaroop. But accused Ram Kalyan and Hiralal also armed with lathies and came alongwith Ramswaroop, thus, they shared the common intention, therefore, accused Ram Kalyan and Hiralal also can be convicted with the add of Section 34, IPC. 14. Now we left with the question whether the offence has been committed u/Section 302 or u/Section 304, Part II, IPC. The prosecution case is that in the morning at about 6.00 a.m, while Dakhan was abusing to Ram Kanwari, wife of deceased, deceased Bhanwar Lal came out of the house and complaining to Gopal (PW 7) and Kishore (PW 10), at that point of time, all the three accused Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal came out of the house armed with lathies and Ramswaroop gave lathi blow on the head of deceased. Lathi blow given on the chest is not specifically attributed to him. Only three external injuries have been found while the deceased was examined just after the complaint in the police. Thereafter, he expired and about six- injuries, external and internal, were found on the person of deceased. All are by blunt weapon. There is only three external injuries were found that too with blunt weapon, therefore, the number of injuries and weapon used and the incident took place at the spur of moment, accused respondents may have knowledge that the injuries inflicted him likely to cause death, but it cannot be said with all certainty that they have any plan to commit murder and cause injuries with a view to commit murder only. Thus, in our considered opinion, the case does not travel beyond Section 304 Part II, Indian Penal Code and when specific injury on head has been attributed to accused Ramswaroop, he is convicted u/Section 304 Part II and also u/Section 323, IPC. Accused Ram Kalyan and Hiralal are convicted for the offence u/Section 304 read with Sections 34 and also Section 323, IPC. 15. There is no allegation against accused Mst. Dakhan and Mst. Ram Kanya that they have inflicted injuries to deceased or they were present at spot 'A'. They were in front of their house and they caught hold Madan Lal (PW 8) and Ram Kanwari, (PW 9) while they were going to save deceased and inflicted injuries. Some injuries are also found on the body of Madan Lal (PW 8). But the prosecution case that the beating is not given only by Ram Kalyan and Dakhan only but informant and his mother were beaten by accused Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal also, it cannot be said with all certainty who caused the injuries on the body of Madan Lal (PW 8). In view of this, we find no justification to interfere in the acquittal of Mst. Dakhan and Mst. Ram Kanya.Now we left with the sentence. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case and the fact that incident took place as back as in 1986 and now we are in 1997, even the Trial Court has acquitted them, we sentenced accused Ramswaroop to undergo four years' imprisonment and also pay fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo one month's simple imprisonment for the offence u/Section 304 Part II, IPC, and he is further sentenced to undergo six months' imprisonment for the offence u/Section 323, IPC. Accused Rain Kalyan and Hiralal are sentenced to undergo four years' imprisonment for the offence u/Section 304 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and six months' imprisonment for the offence u/Section 323, IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused Mst. Dakhan and Mst. Ram Kanya are acquitted. Accused Ramswaroop, Ram Kalyan and Hiralal are on bail and they have not served four years' sentence, the Trial Court is directed to issue arrest warrants and send them in judicial custody to serve out the remaining part of sentence. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed. *******