JUDGMENT - VISHNU SAHAI, J.:---Since both these matters, arise out of the same set of facts and a common impugned judgment, we are disposing them off by one Judgment. 2.Three persons namely Subhash Dnyanoba Jadhav, Appasaheb Dnyanoba Jadhav and Bapu Dnyanoba Jadhav were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 1995, for offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324 all read with section 34 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge was pleased to convict and sentence Subhash Dnyanoba Jadhav and Appasaheb Dnyanoba Jadhav in the manner stated hereinafter: (i) Under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo three months R.I. (ii) Under section 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. to undergo seven years R.I.; (iii) Under section 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. to undergo three years R.I. The substantive sentences of the said persons were directed to run concurrently. The learned trial Judge however, was pleased to acquit Bapu Dnyanoba Jadhav on all the counts. Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1995 has been preferred by the appellants - Subhash Dnyanoba Jadhav and Appasaheb Dnyanoba Jadhav against the aforesaid convictions and sentences. Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1996 has been preferred by Sanjay Sukhdeo Koli P.W. 2 the original complainant who has made two main prayers namely that: a) the acquittal of Bapu Dnyanoba Jadhav on various counts be set aside; and his case should be remanded for re-trial to the trial Court; and b) the sentence awarded to the respondents Subhash Dnyanoba Jadhav and Appasaheb Dnyanoba Jadhav be enhanced. 3.The prosecution case in short runs as under : The informant Sanjay Sukhdeo Koli P.W. 2, Baban Koli P.W. 10 and Dattatraya Koli P.W. 11, are the nephews of the deceased Nivrutti (their father's sister was married to Nivrutti) and deceased Bhanudas. Hanmant Koli P.W. 3 is the son of the deceased Bhanudas Koli and grand son of the deceased Nivrutti, in as much as the later was maternal uncle of his father. The said witnesses, the deceased persons and the appellants used to live in the same village namely Akola-Vasud, in Taluka Sangola District Solapur. About seven to eight months prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the deceased Bhanudas and the appellants on account of right of way. The said witnesses, the deceased persons and the appellants used to live in the same village namely Akola-Vasud, in Taluka Sangola District Solapur. About seven to eight months prior to the incident, there was a quarrel between the deceased Bhanudas and the appellants on account of right of way. The house of the appellants was situated at a distance of about 125 feet from that of Bhanudas. The way to Akola-Vasud was situated in front of the door of the appellants and they were obstructing Bhanudas from using that way. On 27-10-1994, at about 6.30/7 p.m. Dattatraya Koli, the brother of the informant Sanjay Koli, came running from the village and informed him that the appellants and the acquitted accused Bapu Jadhav were quarrelling with Hanmant and Bhanudas. Consequently, he along with his brothers Baban Koli P.W. 10 and Dattatraya Koli, and his mother Sitabai, came running to the village. They heard the cries of quarrel coming from behind the house of the appellants. Consequently, they went to the place where the quarrel was going, namely under a neem tree. Hanmant Koli also reached there. They saw that the appellant Subhash Jadhav was armed with a knife and the appellant Appasaheb Jadhav was armed with a dagger and were inflicting injuries with the said weapons in succession on the person of Nivrutti. When Hanmant Koli tried to intervene, the appellant Subhash Jadhav inflicted a knife blow on his chest. The appellant Bapu Jadhav caught hold of Sanjay Koli and the appellant Subhash Jadhav inflicted a blow with a knife over his right forearm. The appellant Appasaheb Jadhav inflicted a blow with a dagger on Babban. Some villagers had assembled there. They intervened and rescued them. As a consequence of the assault, Nivrutti died on the spot. Thereafter, the appellants and Bapu Jadhav went towards their house and the informant Sanjay Koli and others started proceeding for their Vasti. In the meantime, Sukhdeo Koli (father of the informant Baban Koli and Dattatraya Koli) and Bhanudas came from the village. Bhanudas Koli seeing them in a injured condition, rushed to the house of Sidhling Shivsaran P.W. 16 for bringing a jeep and this infuriated the appellants who followed him. The informant and Dattatraya Koli also followed the appellants. In the meantime, Sukhdeo Koli (father of the informant Baban Koli and Dattatraya Koli) and Bhanudas came from the village. Bhanudas Koli seeing them in a injured condition, rushed to the house of Sidhling Shivsaran P.W. 16 for bringing a jeep and this infuriated the appellants who followed him. The informant and Dattatraya Koli also followed the appellants. Finding Bhanudas standing in front of the house of Sidhling Shivsaran, the appellant Subhash Jadhav inflicted knife blows and appellant Appasaheb Jadhav inflicted blows with a dagger over Bhanudas's person resulting on his falling down. Thereafter, the appellants ran away. Thereafter, the informant Sanjay Koli informed his parents and Bhanudas's wife Indirabai. They then proceeded on foot to Kamlapur. On reaching Kamlapur, they boarded a tempo and went to police station Sangola. 3.The evidence of H.C. Sidhling Shivasaran P.W. 16 shows that the same day, 27-10-1994 at 9.15 P.M. Hanmant Koli and Baban Koli came to Police Station Sangola. 4.The evidence of Sanjay Koli P.W. 2 shows that he informed the police of Sangola Police Station which thereafter sent them to Rural Hospital, Sangola for medical examination. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to the evidence of P.H.C. Sidhling Shivsaran P.W. 16 of Sangola police station who has stated that Hanmant Koli and Baban Koli came to the Police Station at 9.15 P.M. It appears that the prosecutor conducting the examination-in-chief did not ask the name of Sanjay Koli. 5.The evidence of Dr. Jivan Vaydande P.W. 18 who at the time of the incident was posted as the Medical Officer of Rural Hospital, Sangola shows that on 27-10-1994, at 9.30 p.m. he examined Hanmant Koli and Baban Koli and on the same date at 10.30 p.m. examined Sanjay Koli. On the person of Hanmant Koli, he found one incised wound over the left flank having a 'L' shape muscle deep size 3 cm x 2 cm bleeding present which in his opinion was dangerous to life. On the person of Baban Koli, he found perforation 2 cm x ½ cm on saceral region which was simple in nature. On the person of Sanjay Koli, he found an incised injury 6 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on the right forearm which was simple in nature. After examining the victims, Dr. Vaydande P.W. 18 referred them to the Civil Hospital, Solapur. On the person of Sanjay Koli, he found an incised injury 6 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on the right forearm which was simple in nature. After examining the victims, Dr. Vaydande P.W. 18 referred them to the Civil Hospital, Solapur. 6.The evidence of P.S.I. Chandrakant Jadhav P.W. 13 who at the time of the incident was posted at taluka Police Station, Solapur shows that on 27-10-1994, at 11.20 p.m. he received a message from A.P.I. Bharatkumar Rane P.W. 19 from Sangola Police Station that two murders had been committed within the jurisdiction of his police station and three persons had been referred to the Civil Hospital, Solapur for treatment and consequently, he should proceed to the said hospital and record the F.I.R. Consequently, he proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Solapur and recorded the F.I.R. as narrated by Sanjay Koli. It is pertinent to mention that on the basis of this F.I.R., P.H.C. Shivsaran registered an offence on 28-10-1994 at 8 a.m. vide C.R. No. 157 of 1994 under section 302, 307 I.P.C. etc. The evidence of P.S.I. Jadhav further shows that H.C. Shivsaran told him that he had asked the Special Judicial Magistrate to record the dying declaration of the injured persons. 7.The autopsy on the corpse of the deceased persons was conducted on 28-10-1994 by Dr. Jivan Vaydande P.W. 18. On the person of Bhanudas, the doctor found the following ante mortem injuries :- "1) Incised wound over mandibular region in right side of neck. And to and above sterbo mastoid, muscle deep size 6cm x 2cm carotid artery cut open. 2) Incised wound over right sub occipital region size 8cm x 2cm muscle deep." In the opinion of Dr. Vaydande, Bhanudas died on account of cardio respiratory failure due to haemorrhage and shock on account of the injuries. On the person of Nivrutti, Dr. Vaydande found the following ante mortem injuries: "1. Vertical incised wound over right maxillary region size 3 cm x 2 cm muscle deep. 2. Horizontal incised wound over left side of neck size 3 cm x 2 cm muscle deep carotid artery cut. 3. Stab wound over right para sternal region 4th I.C. space 5 cm lat, to sternum size 2 cm x 1 cm. 4. Stab wound over left parasternal region just lateral to sternum 6th I.C. space size 2 cm x 1 cm right ventricle perforation. 5. 3. Stab wound over right para sternal region 4th I.C. space 5 cm lat, to sternum size 2 cm x 1 cm. 4. Stab wound over left parasternal region just lateral to sternum 6th I.C. space size 2 cm x 1 cm right ventricle perforation. 5. Stab wound over right chest region mide clavicular 9th I.C. space, size 2 cm x 1 cm left ventricle perforation." On internal examination, he found perforation over the left ventricular region. In his opinion, Nivrutti died on account of cardio respiratory failure due to haemorrhagic shock due to multiple stab injuries with perforation of heart. 8.It is pertinent to mention that on 28-10-1994, at 7 p.m. appellant Subhash Jadhav who had been referred for medical examination with a yadi was examined by Dr. Mallikarjun Pattanshetti P.W. 12 who found on his person two contused abrasions, one being 4 cm x 3 cm situated on occipital region and the other being 2 cm x 1 cm located on the right great toe. Both of them were simple in nature. 9.The investigation was conducted in the usual manner by A.P.I. Bharat Kumar Rane P.W. 19 and A.S.P. Kulvant Kumar Kartarchand P.W. 21. During the course of the same, on the pointing of the appellants Subhash and Appasaheb, knife and dagger were recovered in the presence of the public panch Chandrakant Mhaske P.W. 6. However, we are not going deeper into these recoveries because, the cross-examination of Chandrakant Mhaske P.W. 6 shows that the police had already knowledge about the said weapons. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to para 6 of the cross examination of Chandrakant Mhaske P.W. 6 wherein he stated that on 3-11-1994, the police had informed him that a knife had to be seized and thereafter, the same day, it came and informed him that the panchanama of a dagger was to be drawn. After completing the investigation, appellants and Bapu Jadhav were charge sheeted. 10.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellants and Bapu Jadhav charged on a number of counts, including sections 302, 307, 324 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. 10.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner where the appellants and Bapu Jadhav charged on a number of counts, including sections 302, 307, 324 I.P.C. read with section 34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses. In defence, three witnesses namely Malhari Patole D.W. 1 the Special Executive Magistrate who recorded the statement of some injured witnesses, Hanmant Mohite D.W. 2 and Vatsala Abhangrao D.W. 3 were examined. The last two were examined to prove alibi of the appellant Appasaheb Jadhav. The learned trial Judge believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution vis-a-vis the appellants and convicted and sentenced them in the manner stated in para 2. He however, acquitted Bapu Jadhav. 11.As mentioned in para 2, aggrieved by their convictions and sentences, the appellants Subhash Jadhav and Appasaheb Jadhav have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1995 and the original complainant Sanjay Koli, P.W. 2 has preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1996, the main prayer therein being two-fold namely :- a) the acquittal of respondent Bapu Jadhav be set aside and his case be remanded for retrial; and b) the sentences of the respondents Subhash Jadhav and Appasaheb Jadhav be enhanced. 12.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In our view, both Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1995 and Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1996 deserve to be dismissed. 13.We would first deal with Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1995 preferred by the appellants Subhash Jadhav and Appasaheb Jadhav. For reasons mentioned by us earlier, the evidence of recovery of weapons of assault on their pointing out does not inspire any confidence. Hence, we have to see whether their conviction can be sustained on the ocular account rendered by Sanjay Koli P.W. 2, Hanmant Koli P.W. 3, Baban Koli P.W. 10 and Dattatraya Koli P.W. 11. It is on the basis of the recitals contained in their examination-in-chief that we have set out the prosecution story in para 3 of our judgment. Their evidence shows that on 27-10-1994, at about 6.30/7 p.m. they saw the appellants Subhash Jadhav armed with a knife and Appasaheb Jadhav armed with a dagger assaulting Nivrutti under a neem tree, in their village Akola-Vasud. Their evidence shows that on 27-10-1994, at about 6.30/7 p.m. they saw the appellants Subhash Jadhav armed with a knife and Appasaheb Jadhav armed with a dagger assaulting Nivrutti under a neem tree, in their village Akola-Vasud. It also shows that when they tried to rescue Nivrutti, they were also assaulted; Hanmant by the appellant Subhash Jadhav who inflicted knife blow on the left side of his chest; Sanjay Koli by appellant Subhash Jadhav on his right forearm while the acquitted accused Bapurao Jadhav was catching hold of him; and Baban by appellant Appasaheb Jadhav who inflicted a dagger blow on his chest. Their evidence further shows that when Bhanudas Koli on seeing them in an injured condition tried to rush to the house of Shivsaran, for bringing a jeep, the appellants also assaulted him with a knife and a dagger. 14.We have examined the evidence of the four eye witnesses and we find that it is implicitly reliable. The manner of assault as furnished by them is corroborated by the medical examination. In the earlier part of our judgment, we have referred to the injuries suffered by Sanjay Koli, Hanmant Koli, Bapu Koli, the deceased Nivrutti and Bhanudas. Their perusal shows that they are in conformity with their manner of being caused as deposed to by these witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that out of the four eye witnesses three namely Sanjay Koli, Hanmant Koli and Baban Koli, are injured witnesses who had serious injuries on their person which were examined the same night. Their injuries lend a seal of assurance to their presence on the place of the incident. 15.Assurance to the ocular account given out by the four eye witnesses is also forthcoming by two other circumstances namely : a) the F.I.R. of the incident was recorded promptly at the Civil Hospital, Solapur; and b) there was a plausible motive for the appellants to have committed the crime. As seen in para 6, the evidence of P.S.I. Chandrakant Jadhav shows that on the date of the incident itself, 27-10-1994 at 11.20 p.m. he received a message from A.P.I. Bharat Kumar Rane P.W. 19 and on the said message proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Solapur, where he recorded the F.I.R. of Sanjay Koli the same night. As seen in para 6, the evidence of P.S.I. Chandrakant Jadhav shows that on the date of the incident itself, 27-10-1994 at 11.20 p.m. he received a message from A.P.I. Bharat Kumar Rane P.W. 19 and on the said message proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Solapur, where he recorded the F.I.R. of Sanjay Koli the same night. It is pertinent to mention that the prosecution case as unfolded by the eye witnesses in their evidence is given out in the F.I.R. We also find that there was a plausible motive for the appellants to have committed the crime. In the earlier part of our judgment, we have mentioned that the house of the deceased Bhanudas was situated at a distance of 125 feet from that of the appellants who were real brothers and since the way to village Akole-Vasud was situated in front of the house of the appellants, on that score, the relations between the appellants and Bhanudas had become sour. It is pertinent to mention that although, all the four eye witnesses were subjected to an extensive cross examination, but excepting some omissions in their statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cri.P.C. which do not affect the meat of their evidence or militate against the core of the prosecution case, nothing could be extracted therefrom. 16.In our view, the learned trial Judge acted correctly in accepting the evidence of the four eye witnesses and convicting the appellants under sections 302 read with sections 34, 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. The manner of the incident furnished by the four eye witnesses shows that with a prior concert, the appellants armed with a knife and dagger assaulted Nivrutti. The post mortem report of Nivrutti shows that he sustained two incised wounds and three stab wounds, all of which were located on vital parts of body and internal damage involved rupture of heart. It is true that the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. The post mortem report of Nivrutti shows that he sustained two incised wounds and three stab wounds, all of which were located on vital parts of body and internal damage involved rupture of heart. It is true that the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Vayande P.W. 18 did not state that the injuries of Nivrutti were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but, way back in the year 1957 in the oft quoted case of (Brij Bhukan v. State of U.P.)1, reported in A.I.R. 1957 page 474, the Supreme Court in para 5 has held that where a naked perusal of the injuries suffered show that they are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, absence of the evidence of a medical witness to state this, would be inconsequential. In such a situation, we have no reservations in concluding that the appellant committed Nivrutti's murder in furtherance of their common intention. It is true that the deceased Bhanudas was not the original target of assault of the appellants but, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is that when he set out to arrange a jeep, to carry the victims to the hospital, the two appellants with knife and dagger assaulted him and inflicted on his person injuries which have been described by Dr. Vayande P.W. 18 as being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Looking to his injuries, we are inclined to agree with the opinion of Dr. Vayande P.W. 18. It is well-settled that common intention may develop on the spot. In our view, the two appellants had developed a common intention on the spot to commit the murder of Bhanudas. Hence, we make no bones in observing that they also committed Bhanudas's (sic murder) in furtherance of their common intention. We are also satisfied that the appellants committed offence punishable under sections 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. At any rate, it should be borne in mind that their sentences on the said count have been directed to run concurrently with their sentence under section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 17.Mr. M.K. Kocharekar, learned Counsel for the appellants made a number of submissions before us. He firstly urged that the learned trial Judge erred in not finding that the appellant Subhash Jadhav acted in exercise of right of private defence of his person. M.K. Kocharekar, learned Counsel for the appellants made a number of submissions before us. He firstly urged that the learned trial Judge erred in not finding that the appellant Subhash Jadhav acted in exercise of right of private defence of his person. He invited our attention to the suggestion given to the eye witnesses in their cross-examination namely that when on the date of the incident at about 8 p.m., the appellant Subhash Jadhav had returned to village and was taking meals along with his wife and children, they assaulted him and in self defence, appellant Subhash Jadhav killed Nivrutti and Bhanudas. We have no compunction in observing that this defence is a tissue of lies and was denied by the eye-witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that it saw the light of the day for the first time when it was given to the witnesses in cross-examination. No F.I.R. was lodged on of the appellant -- said version. Apart from it, the manner in which the appellant Subhash Jadhav inflicted injuries on the prosecution side and the weapons with which he inflicted them has also not been disclosed. Further it is impossible to believe that appellant Subhash Jadhav single handed could have caused injuries killing two persons and injuring these. 18.It should also be borne in mind that the right of private defence of person is a preventive and not punitive right. Section 99 I.P.C. provides that it does not extend to causing more harm than what is necessary. As we have seen earlier, the appellant Subhash received two contused abrasions which were simple in nature of which one was bearing the dimensions' of 4 cm x 3 cm situated on the scalp and one was of the size of 2 cm x 1 cm and was situated on the right great toe. The injuries inflicted on the side of the prosecution were terribly disproportionate to those received by appellant Subhash. Two incised wounds on the vital parts of the body were inflicted on the person of Bhanudas. Two incised wounds and three stab wounds on vital parts of the body were inflicted on the person of the deceased Nivrutti. One injury was caused to each of the three injured persons. The act of the appellant Subhash in defending himself ceased to be preventive and instead became a punitive one. Two incised wounds and three stab wounds on vital parts of the body were inflicted on the person of the deceased Nivrutti. One injury was caused to each of the three injured persons. The act of the appellant Subhash in defending himself ceased to be preventive and instead became a punitive one. For the said reasons, we reject the first submission of Mr. Kocharekar. 19.Mr. Kocharekar next urged that the learned trial Judge was unjustified in rejecting the defence of alibi of the appellant Appasaheb Jadhav. In this connection, he invited our attention to the evidence of two defence witnesses namely Hanmant Mohite D.W. 2 and Vatsala Abhangrao D.W. 3. Evidence of Hanmant Mohite D.W. 2 shows that the appellant Appasaheb Jadhav was a bus driver. On 27-10-1994 (the date of the incident) he drove the bus from Atpadi to Tuljapur. The bus started at 6.30 a.m. and after reaching Tuljapur, the appellant drove back the bus to Solapur reaching there at about 1.15. p.m. It is pertinent to mention that the incident took place on 27-10-1994 at about 6.30 p.m. to 7. p.m. In our view, between 1.15. p.m. to 6.30 p.m. there was a gap of four hours and 15 minutes and during this time, the appellant could have reached the place of the incident. For this reason, in our view, the evidence of Hanmant Mohite D.W. 2 does not help the appellant. The evidence of Vatsala Abhangrao D.W. 3 also does not help the appellant Appasaheb Jadhav. She stated that on 27-10-1994, at about 6 p.m. he had come to her house situated in Nehru Nagar area of Solapur and after taking food with her son left her house at 8.30 p.m. There is no doubt if we believe her evidence, that appellant Appasaheb could not have participated in the incident which took place on the said date at 6.30 to 7 p.m. However, we find it difficult to believe her evidence as also her claim that she had met the police at Sangola and informed it that the appellant was at her residence at the time of the incident. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to para 3 of her cross-examination wherein she admitted that although she knew that it was her duty to help the appellant when he was implicated in a serious offence but, she did not submit in writing to the police at Sangola or their superiors about the presence of the appellant Appasaheb at her residence at the relevant time and neither she had made any complaint in writing to the superior Police Officers because, her statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. In such a situation, we are inclined to believe the suggestion given to her by the prosecution that since the appellant Appasaheb Jadhav was the son-in-law of her maternal uncle, she was trying to help the appellant. For the said reasons, we reject the submission of Mr. Kocharekar. Mr. Kocharekar thirdly urged that on 27-10-1994 at 6.30 to 7 p.m. when the incident took place, it must be dark and since the prosecution witnesses have not deposed to any source of light in which they saw the appellants, they could not have recognised them. It is a trite that known people can be recognised by their gait, timbre of voice, etc. and if an authority is needed, wherein this has been held then para 5 of the Supreme Court decision reported in A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court page 712 (Kirpal Singh v. State of U.P.)2, may be perused. 20.Mr. Kocharekar finally urged that all the four eye witnesses were interested and independent witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. In his contention, on the ground, the evidence of the eye witnesses deserves to be rejected. We regret that we do not find any merit in Mr. Kocharekar's contention. It is true that the eye witnesses are interested witnesses but, the law is that the testimony of a interested witness has only to be evaluated with caution and not mechanically rejected. Way back in the year 1965, the Supreme Court laid down to this effect in the oft-quoted case of (Masalti and others v. State of U.P.)3, reported in A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court page 202. Since the witnesses are interested we have exercised caution in evaluating their testimony and thereafter have rejected the conclusion that it would be perfectly safe to accept their testimony. 21.No other point was canvassed by Mr. Kocharekar. Since the witnesses are interested we have exercised caution in evaluating their testimony and thereafter have rejected the conclusion that it would be perfectly safe to accept their testimony. 21.No other point was canvassed by Mr. Kocharekar. 22.For the said reasons, we find that Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1995 is devoid of merit. 23.This brings us to the Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1996 preferred by the original complainant Sanjay Koli P.W. 2 wherein the main prayers are of a two fold prayer nature namely: i) the acquittal of the respondent Bapu Jadhav be set aside and his case be remanded for retrial; ii) the sentence awarded to the respondents Subhash Jadhav and Appasaheb Jadhav be enhanced. 23-A.We regret we do not find any merit in this Revision Application. So far as prayer (i) is concerned, we find that the learned trial Judge has based the acquittal of Bapu Jadhav on cogent material. In para 46 of the impugned judgment, he has held that witness Hanmant Mohite had stated before the Special Executive Magistrate (Malhari Patole D. W. 1) that the appellant Bapu Jadhav was a witness and this statement was made by him immediately after the incident. It is for this reason that, he gave him the benefit of doubt. In our view, he acted correctly. Apart from it, it should be borne in mind that the only over act assigned to Bapu Jadhav is of catching hold of Sanjay Koli when appellant Subhash assaulted him. Since there was enmity between the witnesses Sanjay Koli and Bapu Jadhav, possibility of the former falsely implicating him cannot be ruled out. It is well-settled that if the view of acquittal is a reasonable one then, this Court does not disturb the same. We find the view of learned trial Judge acquitting Bapu Jadhav to be reasonable. 23-B.It is well-settled that where an order of acquittal is based on an appraisement of evidence, the High Court does not interfere with it in a revision against acquittal at the instance of a private complainant unless the said appraisement is perverse. Interference in a revision against acquittal as observed by the Apex Court, in para 7 of the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court page 1788 (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy, appellant v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, respondents)4, is only made in exceptional cases. Interference in a revision against acquittal as observed by the Apex Court, in para 7 of the judgment reported in A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court page 1788 (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy, appellant v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, respondents)4, is only made in exceptional cases. Some instances of exceptional cases are given in para 7. They are: "Where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case but, has still acquitted the accused, or where the trial Court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce or where the appeal Court has wrongly held evidence which was admitted by the trial Court to be inadmissible, or where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial Court or by the appeal Court, or where the acquittal is based on a compounding of the offence, which is invalid under the law." In the instant case, no exceptional circumstances which would warrant interference in a revision against acquittal could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the original complainant. As observed by us earlier, the order of acquittal is based on an appraisement of evidence. To repeat, the said appraisement is correct and the conclusion of the trial Court acquitting Bapu Jadhav is also correct. 23-C.So far as prayer (ii) is concerned, we also find it to be devoid of substance. It is well settled that the question of sentence is a question of discretion of the trial Court and unless that discretion has been capriciously exercised, and the sentence awarded is manifestly inadequate, the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with the sentence and enhancing it. In this connection, it could be appropriate to refer to para 15 of the Supreme Court case reported in A.I.R. 1955 S.C. page 778 (Bed Raj appellant v. State of U.P., respondent)5, which reads thus. "A question of a sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, an appellate Court should not interfere to the detriment of an accused person except for very strong reasons which must be disclosed on the face of the judgment, see for example the observations in (Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab)6, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 364 at pp 367-368(A) and - (Nar Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh)7, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 457 at pp 458-459(B). In a matter of enhancement there should not be interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial punishment. Interference is only called for when it is manifestly inadequate." It is common knowledge that for the offence of murder, two sentences are prescribed under section 302 I.P.C. namely life imprisonment or death. In our view, the discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge in awarding a sentence of life imprisonment to the respondents, cannot be said to be a capricious discretion. It cannot be said that the sentence of life imprisonment is so manifestly inadequate that it requires to be enhanced to death sentence. 24.In the result : (A) Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1995 is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants - Subhash Dnyanoba Jadhav and Appasaheb Dnyanoba Jadhav on all the three counts namely, section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C., 307 read with section 34 I.P.C. and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. are confirmed. They are in jail and shall serve out their sentences. (B) Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 1996 is dismissed. Criminal revision application dismissed. -----