JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is filed against acquittal under sub-secs. (iii) & (i) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of State. 2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Bikaner by its judgment dated 28.8.1999 in his Sessions Trial No. 63/96 after a threadbare discussion of the evidence gave benefit of doubt to the four accused-respondents thereby acquitting them from the charges of Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC as also Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act. Aggrieved against that order the State has filed this appeal. 3. I have heard at length the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused not only the impugned judgment but also the record available on the file. Brief facts for the correct appreciation and disposal of this appeal are as under : 4. At 10.00 p.m. on 9.21996 at village Jaimalsar falling in Police Station Jamsar PW-6 Balu Ram was going from his house to the house of Sarpanch Maga Ram. As soon he reached near the house of Triloka Ram, Poona Ram came out of his house with a pistol in his hand and fired upon this witness resulting which he received injuries on his right hand at his right wrist as also on the head resulting which he fell down. His brother Asu Ram alongwith 2-3 persons came out and took him to the hospital where he gave parcha bayan Ex.P-1 to SHO, Police Station Jamsar. At the fag end of Ex.P/1 it is mentioned that Poona Ram was accompanied by his brother Mohan Ram, Triloka Ram and Karna Ram. It is further mentioned that Gopal Singh was also alongwith Balu Ram who too received injuries from accused persons. After usual examination 4 respondents herein have been challaned and charged by the Court below and after evidence of the prosecution they have been acquitted as referred above. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even in the FIR it has been specifically mentioned that Poona Ram gave fire arm injury which hit PW-6 Balu Ram that too was stated on oath by PW-6 Balu Ram during the trial which has been corroborated by testimony of PW-4 Dr. Mahesh Khergawat and that even if some improvements have been made in trial Poona Ram should have been convicted. 6. Mahesh Khergawat and that even if some improvements have been made in trial Poona Ram should have been convicted. 6. On the contrary learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. The settled legal position is that when there in an appeal the Court should bear in mind that it is looking at the printed record and had not an opportunity of seeing witnesses and it should not lightly to reject the trial Courts conclusion. The evidence of particular witness should be believed or should not be believed particularly such conclusion is based on demeanor of witness in Court. Unless the appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court suffers from material irregularity, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of the fact. It must bear in mind that it does not enjoy the advantage which the trial Court had in having the witnesses before it and observing his demeanor. When the matter in issue is credibility of the witnesses, the general rule is that the appellate Court should permit the findings of the fact rendered by the Court to prevail unless some special features about particular witness has escaped the notice of trial or there is sufficient balance of improbability to disbelieve its opinion as to where credibility lies. If the appraisal of the evidence of trial Court suffers from material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence or misreading of evidence or on conjectures and surmises, the appellate Court is entitled to interfere with the findings of fact. 8. In the matter at hand, the trial Court has extensively dealt with why he has not found PW-6 Balu Ram of sterling worth because he made significant improvements from Parcha Bayan Ex.P/1 lodged by him as also from the Police Statement Ex.D/4 recorded immediately after the occurrence. In both these previous statements only Poona Rain has been implicated who gave only one fire from his pistol. However, during the Court testimony PW-6 Balu Ram has made extensively exaggerations by stating that Poona Ram fired twice hitting this witness and as also on Gopal Singh. Similarly, Balu Ram again stated that Mohan Ram was armed with an Axe whereas Triloka Ram and Karna Ram were armed with lathis. They too gave beating to this witness. However, during the Court testimony PW-6 Balu Ram has made extensively exaggerations by stating that Poona Ram fired twice hitting this witness and as also on Gopal Singh. Similarly, Balu Ram again stated that Mohan Ram was armed with an Axe whereas Triloka Ram and Karna Ram were armed with lathis. They too gave beating to this witness. It is further stated that Karna Rani exhorted his co-accused to kill this witness. After hearing that exhortion Asu Rain, Mohan Ram etc. came out of the house who took injured to the hospital. All these exonerations were put to the witness in the cross-examination for plausible explanation but the only explanation given by the witness was that he has stated so but he does not know why the same has not been mentioned in the Parcha Bayan Ex.P/1 as well as in Police statement Ex.D/4. Keeping in view aforesaid material exaggerations, without any plausible explanation, the trial Court has not held this witnesses of sterling worth and has given benefit of doubt while acquitting the accused-respondents. 9. Though, it is the duty of the trial Court to have made endeavor to separate the grains from chaffs and find out the truth. However, in the matter at hand, when there were significant material amendments it is not possible to rely upon the testimony of PW-6 Balu Ram so far as implication in crime of accused-Poona Ram is concerned. The Apex Court in Kashiram v. State of M.P., 2002 SCC (Crl.) 68 has held as under : "Though the High Court while hearing an appeal against an acquittal has powers as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and while exercising its appellate jurisdiction the High Court can reappraise the evidence, arrive at the findings at variance with those recorded by the trial Court in its order of acquittal and arrive at its own findings, yet, the salutary principle which would guide the High Court is - if two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording the conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial Court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. It follows as a necessary corollary that it is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an, order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dislodge those reasons. Failure to discharge this obligation constitutes a serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court." 10. The Apex Court in Murli Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3031 was of the view that if the general tenor of the evidence given of witness and the trial Court upon appreciation of evidence form his opinion about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances, the appellate Court would not be justified to review it once again without justifiable reasons. 11. It is the totality of the situation which has to be taken note of. In the matter at hand even the general tenor of the evidence given by PW-6 Balu Ram was rightly held not reliable and this Court while sitting in appeal against acquittal once again cannot convict the accused in the crime on the bass of evidence available on the file because the judicious approach of the appellate Court in appeal against acquittal has to be cautious, circumspect and careful. The Court below has not based its judgment merely on conjectures and surmises norm minor insignificant inconsistencies. Learned Public Prosecutor has failed to prove the offence beyond the reasonable doubt not only in the Court below but also in the appellate Court. 12. Consequently, there is no merit and the leave sought is refused.Leave refused. *******