JUDGMENT 1. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of the accused of the offences for which they were charged, rendered in Sessions Case No. 37/79 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner on 17.3.1981, State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 2. The incident occurred on 13.3.1979 in village Sarupdaser at about 8 in the evening where it is alleged that the accused persons duly armed with saila, barchhi, lathi assembled unlawfully with the common object to killing Uda Ram and injuring others on account of quarrel that pre-existed between the villagers. They attacked Uda Ram, Nand Ram, Magha Ram, Ram Chandra, Sukhi Ram, Arajan, Dula Ram, Teja Ram, Surja Ram and Rameshwar. Uda Ram died of the injuries sustained by him and others also received injuries. The quarrel pertained to common water feeder tank constructed by Amar Chand contractor for the villagers by which water was also taken by him for his brick kiln without paying separate charges. Since the accused persons were not agreeable, the water tank was destroyed by them. The quarrel of 13.3.1979 is alleged to have been caused for this issue. 3. Fifteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case and five witnesses were examined by the defence to prove that even the presence of some of the accused persons on the date of the occurrence was not proved by the prosecution. On a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond doubt and he, therefore, acquitted all the accused persons of the charges for which they were prosecuted. 4. With the assistance of the learned RR and the counsel for the accused, we have re-appreciated the evidence on record and we have scrutinised the proceedings in the light of the submissions made by the learned RR 5. The law in regard to reversal of a judgment of acquittal is now well settled. Unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or based on perverse interpretation and appreciation of the evidence on record, it need not be interfered with merely on the ground that the conclusions consistent with guilt of the accused can also be drawn on re -appreciation of the evidence on record. Unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or based on perverse interpretation and appreciation of the evidence on record, it need not be interfered with merely on the ground that the conclusions consistent with guilt of the accused can also be drawn on re -appreciation of the evidence on record. This principle of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court of India keeping similar view of the High Court, is based on the sound principle of logic. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of some set of evidence, had come to the conclusion that the accused persons are not guilty. On re-appreciation even if this Court feels that the conclusion of guilt is possible according to the evidence, there will be difference of opinion giving rise to a reasonable doubt as to whether existence of conclusion of guilt is preferable to the existence of conclusion of acquittal and in such circumstances again according to the law established, benefit must go to the accused. It is on the basis of this reasoning that it has been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court of India that reversal of an order of acquittal should not be undertaken unless the order of acquittal is proved to be perverse. 6. It is keeping in mind these basic principles of re-appreciation of evidence in matters of acquittal that we have to re-appreciate the evidence in the present case. The learned Sessions Judge has after appreciating the evidence on record observed in para 25 of the judgment that for five reasons mentioned in that paragraph, he is unable to come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt We have considered each of these reasons in re-appreciation of the evidence on record and we cannot say that any of the reasons is incorrect or perverse. 7. The first reason given by the learned Judge is that there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that the accused came to the scene of occurrence with a prior common object by killing the deceased Uda Ram. The testimony of the eye witnesses account given by the eye- witnesses, however, does not show that there is any statement regarding pre-meditation on the part of the accused persons. There is no cogent evidence of pre-meditation or prior planning on the prat of the accused. The testimony of the eye witnesses account given by the eye- witnesses, however, does not show that there is any statement regarding pre-meditation on the part of the accused persons. There is no cogent evidence of pre-meditation or prior planning on the prat of the accused. The conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be called perverse in any case. 8. The discrepancy in the evidence of recovery and the injuries caused thereby was the other reason used by the learned Sessions Judge for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The doctor has clearly admitted that the injury on the person of the deceased was such as could not have been caused by saila recovered from the accused. It is obvious from the record that the theory of recovery as put up by the prosecution even if assumed to be true, does not prove that these weapons recovered, were used by the accused persons. A perusal of the eye witnesses's examination in this case will show that they are mugged up. The discrepancies of the incident as it occurred according to them is very graphic and clear and there is no material contradiction in the statement of any of them. In fact, statement of one witness after the other appears like verbatim repetition of the earlier statement. The learned Judge has, therefore, rejected this evidence on record for the depositions of these witnesses do net seem true. Our re-appreciation of the evidence also shows that this finding of the learned Judge is not perverse. 9. Admittedly, the incident occurred near the temple of Bheruji on the day of Holi where several persons assembled there to celebrate Holi. The eye witnesses have stated that the deceased Uda Ram had gone there for celebrating Holi. Several villagers were present there still no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution and the witnesses examined, are close relations of the deceased. Admittedly, when the dispute for which this assault occurred according to the prosecution, was a dispute between the group of villagers and in such circumstances, existence of independent evidence becomes necessary. The possibility that such independents evidence was available has not been ruled out by any evidence led by the prosecution. Admittedly, when the dispute for which this assault occurred according to the prosecution, was a dispute between the group of villagers and in such circumstances, existence of independent evidence becomes necessary. The possibility that such independents evidence was available has not been ruled out by any evidence led by the prosecution. In such circumstances, their deposition in an identical manner gives a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Judge that the prosecution sttiry in its true colour has not been put forth by the prosecution witness. It raises reasonable doubt regarding Court person to see the assault particularly so because the saila, which was recovered from the accused, has not caused any injury to the deceased person and the saila injury is present on the person of the deceased is caused by saila, which is not recovered. It gives reasonable doubt that the killing has been done by another person with saila, who is even not prosecuted. Such existence of possibility, therefore, creates a reasonable doubt to a prudent man that the prosecution appears to have failed in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If such is the conclusion reached at by the learned Judge on appreciation of evidence on its re-appreciation merely because such doubt may fall, this Court need not take a contrary view because the finding as given by the learned Judge cannot be in the circumstances, styled as perverse. 10. The order of acquittal is passed in March, 1981 and since then, the accused persons are at liberty. A period of 18 years has elapsed during which, the accused were enjoying their right of liberty. More strong or cogent reasons must exist to deny them the right to liberty by recording the order of acquittal. Such cogent and strong reasons do not exist in the present case. The incident has occurred admittedly due to enmity and in such circumstances, reversing the order of acquittal may result in reviving the group rivalry, which might have died by now by passage of 19 years of time. The conclusions of the learned Judge recording acquittal are not so perverse as can be termed is miscarriage of justice. In such circumstances, passage of 19 years after JJie judgment of acquittal in itself is a very strong reason for which we should desist from interfering with the finding of acquittal.Appeal dismissed. *******