JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 21/2001 by which he acquitted the accused respondents, namely, Om Prakash, Sohanlal, Jagdish, Genaram, Rajaram, Hansraj and Bhajnaram of the charges for the offence under sections 148, 302, 302/149, 459, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 307/149 IPC & Bhagchand and Srikishan of the charges for the offence u/s 148, 302, 302/149, 459, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 307 IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:-On 20.5.1995 at about 7.15 PM, PW15 Tara Chand, SHO Police Station Nokha District Bikaner received a cryptic telephonic message from unknown person to the effect that in Ward No. 2 village Nokha, Ram Pratap Bishnoi (PW 3) and Sohan Lal Bishnoi (accused respondent, who was acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track)), who are real brothers, were fighting and arms, lathies, barchiyas etc. were being used in that fighting and two persons had died, That information was reduced in writing by PW15 Tara Chand in Rojnamcha Ex.P/28 and thereafter, he along with Hardeep Singh, SI, Mangilal, ASI, Balraj Singh, ASI (PW17) and other police officials reached at the place of occurrence. The further case of the prosecution is that at the place of occurrence, PW3 Ram Pratap gave a parcha bayan Ex.P/9 to PW15 Tara Chand at about 7.45 PM on 20.5.1995 stating inter-alia that they are four brothers and all the brothers had their own house adjacent to each 1 other and sometime back, accused respondent Genaram installed a Dharm-kanta on road and thereafter, after five years of that, complainant party also installed a Dharm-kanta on that road and because of that, relations between them were not cordial and prior to present incident, the members of the accused-respondent party had also tried to beat the members of the complainant party. It was further stated in the parcha bayan Ex.P/9 by PW 3 Ram Pratap that on the fateful day at about 7.15 PM, he, his son Banwari (PW4) and Ramnarayan (PW2) and Maniram (hereinafter referred to as thedeceased) were at the residence and his son Bhagwanaram was at the site of Dharm-kanta and suddenly, the accused Genaram, Bhagchand, Om Prakash, Hansraj, Sohanlal, Jagdish, Rajaram, Srikishan and Bhajnaram (accused respondents) and accused Mohanlal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased accused is Mohanlal), accused Rameshwarlal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased accused Rameshwarlal) and accused Ramnarayan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased accused Ramnarayan) came in a Truck and left the Truck at Jambhaji-ki-chowki and thereafter, abusing complainant party, the accused respondents, and accused deceased Mohanlal, accused deceased Rameshwarlal and accused deceased Ramnarayan entered the house of PW3 Ram Pratap and at that time, the accused respondents Genaram, Hansraj, Sohanlal and Rajaram were having jayee, the accused respondent Bhagchand was armed with pistol, accused respondents Om Prakash and Jagdish were armed with barchi, deceased accused Mohanlal was having jayee, accused respondents Srikishan and Bhajnaram were having Sela and deceased Rameshwarlal was having Sela. It was further stated in the Pracha bayan Ex.P/9 by PW3 Ram Pratap that after entering his house, the deceased accused Rameshwarlal gave a sela blow on the chest of Ramnarayan (PW2) and his son Banwari (PW4) ran away in the room and thereafter, deceased Maniram ran away from the house because of fear and all the accused respondents chased him and encircled him and at that time, deceased Maniram was having a pistol and he made fire, but he was beaten by the accused respondents with sela, barchi etc., as a result of which, deceased Maniram fell down and thereafter, one of the accused respondents brought truck and dashed that Truck against the wall of the house of PW3 Ram Pratap and thereafter, the accused respondents tried to search out PW4 Banwarilal and in the meantime, accused respondent Sohanlal said that police has already been informed and the police was coming and thereafter, the accused respondents ran away. It was further stated in the parcha bayan Ex.P/9 by PW3 Ram Pratap that accused respondent Bhagchand made fire with his pistol and in the alleged incident, deceased Maniram was murdered and PW2 Ramnarayan and PW4 Banwarilal received injuries at the hands of the accused respondent-party. It was further stated in the parcha bayan Ex.P/9 by PW3 Ram Pratap that accused respondent Bhagchand made fire with his pistol and in the alleged incident, deceased Maniram was murdered and PW2 Ramnarayan and PW4 Banwarilal received injuries at the hands of the accused respondent-party. On that parcha bayan ExP/9, the police registered the case and chalked out regular FIR No.95/95 (Ex.P/19) and started investigation. so During investigation, after inspecting the place of occurrence, the police prepared the site plan Ex.P/10 and description memo Ex.P/10A showing the details and position of place of occurrence. The accused respondents were got arrested by the police. The post mortem of the dead body of the deceased Maniram was got conducted by the Medical Board and PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami was one of the members of the Medical Board and the post mortem report of the deceased Maniram is Ex.P/27 where it was opined by the Medical Board that death has resulted from extensive haemorrhage and brain injuries. PW2 Ramnarayan was also got medically examined by PW11 Dr. G.L. Jaipal and his injury report is Ex.P/25, which shows that he received three injuries. His X-ray report is Ex.P/26, which shows that the injuries were of simple nature. PW4 Banwarilal was also got medical examined by PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami and his injury report is Ex.P/28, which shows that he received three injuries. It may be stated here that in the same incident, from the side of accused respondent-party, the accused respondent Rajaram had also received injuries and his injury report is Ex.D/11A which shows that he received three injuries and furthermore, three persons, namely, deceased accused Ramnarayan, deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Rameshwarlal had also died. The post mortem report of deceased accused Ramnarayan is Ex.D/9A where it was opined by the Medical Board that his death resulted from haernorrhagic shock. The post mortem report of deceased accused Mohanlal is Ex.D/10A where it was opined that his death has resulted from haemorrhagic shock because of the injuries to the vital organs by fire arms. The post mortem report of deceased accused Rameshwarlal is Ex.P/D16A which shows that he received nine injuries and it was opined that he died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result from multiple intra abdominal injuries caused by pellets of short gun fire arm. The post mortem report of deceased accused Rameshwarlal is Ex.P/D16A which shows that he received nine injuries and it was opined that he died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result from multiple intra abdominal injuries caused by pellets of short gun fire arm. It was further opined that the injuries No. 4 and 5 were collectively as well as individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary nature of course. After usual investigation, the police filed challan for the offence under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149 IPC and 27 of the Indian Arms Act against the accused respondents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nokha, Bikaner and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner. 3. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Bikaner framed the charges against the accused respondents in the following manner:- Name of accused Charges 1. Bhagchand) 148, 302, 302/149, 459, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149 2. Srikishan) 307 IPC and 27 of the Indian Arms Act 3. Om Prakash) 148, 302, 302/149, 459, 323, 323/149, 324, 324/149 4. Soharial) 307/149 IPC 5. Jagdish) 6. Genaram) 7. Rejaram) 8. Hansraj) 9. Bhanjnaram) The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents. They denied the charges and claimed trial.During the course of trial, as many as 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and many documents were got exhibited. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.In the statements recorded under section 313 Cr.PC., most of the accused respondents stated that it was the complainant party, who attacked them, as a result of which, three persons, namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan died and all the three deceased accused received fire arm injuries at the hands of the complainant party and furthermore, the accused respondent Rajaram had also received fire arm injuries at the hands of the complainant party and thus, the complainant party was aggressor In defence, the accused respondents examined two witnesses and also got exhibited some documents.After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner through his impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.9.2001 acquitted all the nine accused respondents of all the charges framed against them holding inter-alia:- (i) That in the same incident, from the side of accused-respondents party, three persons, namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan, who were sons of accused respondent Sohanlal died and all of them died because of the fire arm injuries and in the same incident, from the side of the complainant party, one person, namely, deceased Mani Ram died. (ii) That in the same incident, one of the accused respondents, namely, Rajaram also received gun shot injuries and furthermore, the death of the deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan took place because of fire arm injuries, while the death of the deceased Maniram belonging to the complainant party took place because of the injuries received by him and he did not receive any fire arm injury. (iii) That the fact that PW4 Banwarilal was beaten by the accused respondents Bhagchand and Hansraj was found doubtful. (iv) That the fact that deceased Maniram when he was firing received injuries cannot be accepted. (v) That it is not clear from the evidence of the prosecution as to by which accused respondents, the injuries were caused to deceased Maniram. (vi) That no doubt presence of accused respondents Om Prakash, Sohanlal and Rajaram on the scene is established from Ex.D/8A, which is an FIR of cross case lodged by accused respondent Sohanlal, but the fact that these three accused respondents would have caused injuries to deceased Maniram is still in doubt. (vii) That the site plan Ex.P/10 was prepared by 10 PW15 Tara Chand and according to his statement, the incident of present case as well as of crass-case took place at the same place and at same time. (vii) That the site plan Ex.P/10 was prepared by 10 PW15 Tara Chand and according to his statement, the incident of present case as well as of crass-case took place at the same place and at same time. (viii) That when in the same incident, from the side of accused party, three persons, namely, deceased accused Rameshwarlal, deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan died and one person, namely, accused respondent Rajaram received injuries of fire arms, then in the right of private defence and self-defence, the accused respondents party put the truck into motion and thereafter, it was dashed against the wall of the house of the complainant party and therefore, from this fact, it cannot be said that the accused respondents party was aggressor and on the contrary, since three persons, namely, deceased accused Rameshwarlal, deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan belonging to the accused respondent party died in the same incident and in reprisal, the injuries would have been caused to deceased Maniram by the members of the accused party and in view of this fact, no offence was committed by the accused respondents and thus, they were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 4. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) are perverse and totally against the evidence and material available on record and furthermore, looking to the injuries received by the deceased Maniram, it was not possible for the prosecution to explain as to which accused respondents caused injuries on the body of the deceased and apart from this, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) holding the complainant party aggressor were also erroneous. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner be set aside and all the accused respondents be convicted and sentenced for the murder of deceased Maniram. 5. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) holding the complainant party aggressor were also erroneous. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner be set aside and all the accused respondents be convicted and sentenced for the murder of deceased Maniram. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents has submitted that since in the present cases, the witnesses of the prosecution have not explained how the three persons, namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan belonging to the accused party died in the same incident, therefore, they had suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and in these circumstances, the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) that the accused respondents party was not aggressor and in reprisal, injuries would have been caused to the deceased Maniram are in consonance with the evidence available on record, especially when the defence of the accused respondents is discussed. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused respondents that the order of acquittal can be interfered with only when the findings are perverse, but in the present case, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence or material and rather they are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Hence, this State appeal be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondents and the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case. 7. Before proceeding further, we would like to discuss first the medical evidence.Injuries found on the person of PW2 Ramnarayan 8. PW11 Dr. G.L. Jaipal in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 20.5.1995 h was Medical Jurist in PB.M. Hospital, Bikaner and on that day, he medically examined PW2 Ramnarayan and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Incised wound 3 X 0.5cm X bone deep at forehead upper ⅓ on Rt. side. (2) Incised wound 2 x0.5crnx bone deep on forehead upper ⅓ on left side. (3) Sucking wound on chest upper ⅓ Fit. side which is dressed and sealed as per B.N.T. the wound is not indicated clinically to open for examination. side. (2) Incised wound 2 x0.5crnx bone deep on forehead upper ⅓ on left side. (3) Sucking wound on chest upper ⅓ Fit. side which is dressed and sealed as per B.N.T. the wound is not indicated clinically to open for examination. He has further stated that on 22.5.1995 at about 10.15 AM, he examined above injury No. 3 in Emergency Operation Theatre when dressing of wound was done and one wound was seen just above I intercostal space of chest on Rt. side medial end 2cm away from midline and the wound was 3.5cm below the carvicle bone. The size of wound 4.5 X1.5 X?deep underneath muscle was seen. The margin of wound was clear cut and there was no sucking.He has further stated that for the above injuries, X-rays were got conducted and thereafter, he opined that all the above injuries were simple in nature, though caused by sharp edged weapon. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/25. 9. Thus, from the statement of PW11 Dr. G.L. Jaipal, it is very much clear that PW2 Ramnarayan received three injuries by sharp edged weapon, but the same were found simple in nature.Injuries found on the person of PW4 Banwarilal 10. PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 21.5.1995 at about 11.00 PM, he medically examined PW4 Banwarilal and found the following injuries on his person:- (1) Abrasion 2cm X 2cm near tip of Rt. shoulder. (2) Lacerated wound 1.5cm X 1cm X skin deep on inner side of the proximal part of Rt. thumb. (3) Contusion 4cm X2cm on poster() lateral aspect of upper ⅓ of Rt. forearm. He has further stated that the above three injuries were caused by blunt weapon and the injury No. 2 was of simple nature and for injuries No. 1 and 3 he advised for X-rays. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/28. 11. Thus, from the statement of PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami, it is very iso much clear that PW4 Banwarilal received three injuries by blunt weapon and injury No. 2 was found simple in nature.Post mortem report of the deceased Maniram 12. PW12 Dr. He has proved the injury report Ex.P/28. 11. Thus, from the statement of PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami, it is very iso much clear that PW4 Banwarilal received three injuries by blunt weapon and injury No. 2 was found simple in nature.Post mortem report of the deceased Maniram 12. PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 21.5.1995 he was medical Officer in Referral Hospital and on that day, at about 9.30 AM, the post mortem of the dead body of deceased Maniram was conducted and the following injuries were found on his body:- (1) Incised wound measuring 7cmX 1cm X bone deep across the chin with fracture of mandible. (2) Incised wound measuring 10cm X 2cm X bone deep extending so from Rt. nose labial fold across the Lt. angle of mouth of the Lt. lower jaw with fracture of Lt. side of mandible. (3) Incised wound measuring 10cm x 2cm x bone deep extending from tip of nose to left side of cheek with fracture of nasal bone and Lt. side of maxilla. (4) Incised wound measuring 3cm X 1cm X brain deep across left eye brow with laceration of corresponding frontal lobe of brain. (5) Incised wound 10cm X 2cm X brain deep across the center of head horizontally with fracture of both parietal bones and laceration of both parietal lobes underneath the fracture. (6) Incised wound measuring 5cm X 1cm X muscle deep vertically across the centre of injury No. 5. (7) Lacerated wound measuring 2cm X 1cm X skin deep in left intra pectoral region. (8) Lacerated wound 2cm X 1cm X skin deep in left hypochondium. The cause of death was opined in the following manner:- "In our opinion, on the basis of over mentioned post mortem findings, we have come to a conclusion that the death has resulted from extensive haemorrhage and brain injuries." He has further stated that the injury No. 5 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/27. 13. Thus, from the statement of PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami, it is very much clear that the deceased Maniram received 8 injuries, out of which, 6 were incised wounds and his death resulted from extensive haemorrhage and brain injuries. 14. He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/27. 13. Thus, from the statement of PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami, it is very much clear that the deceased Maniram received 8 injuries, out of which, 6 were incised wounds and his death resulted from extensive haemorrhage and brain injuries. 14. Hence, the death of the deceased Maniram was not natural one, but it was homicidal and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. 15. Before proceeding further, the medical evidence pertaining to accused respondent party should also be discussed here. 16. It may be stated here that in the same incident, a cross case FIR No. 96/97 (Ex.D/8A) was lodged by the accused respondent Sohanlal and a charge-sheet was filed against some of the material witnesses of the present complainant party and the same is Ex.D/43A and that charge-sheet Ex.D/43A reveals that it was filed against nine accused persons and PW2 Ramnarayan, PW3 Rampratap, PW4 Banwarilal (Witnesses of present case) were shown as accused in the cross case and the charge in that cross case was that the complainant party of present case committed murder of three persons, namely, Ramnarayan, Rameshwarlal and Mohanlal (deceased accused respondent party of the present case) and also tried to commit murder of Rajaram (accused respondent of present case). 17. Thus, in the same incident, three persons of the present accused respondent party, namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan died and one person, namely, accused respondent Rajaram also received injuries and their injuries are being mentioned here.Injuries of accused respondent Rajaram 18. PW11 Dr. G.L. Jaipal in his statement recorded in Court has stated that on 20.5.1995 at about 11.50 PM, he medically examined the accused respondent Rajaram and found the following injuries on his person:- "(1) ?G.S. wound 0.8 X 0.8cm X ?deep on left leg lower 1/4 medially. (2) ?G.S. wound 0.8 X 0.8cm X ?deep on left leg lower ⅓ posteriorly (12cm above the heel). (2) ?G.S. wound 0.8 X 0.8cm X ?deep on left leg lower ⅓ posteriorly (12cm above the heel). (3) ?G.S. wound 0.6 X 0.6cm X?deep on left ankle joint heel 1 posteriorly." He has further stated that for ascertaining whether the above injuries were grievous or simple, X-rays of above injuries were got conducted and after seeing the X-ray report and the report of the Radiologist he opined in s Ex.D/13A that the above injuries were simple in nature and caused by short gun fire arm. He has proved the injury report Ex.D/11A and further his report Ex.D/13A. 19. Thus, from the statement of PW11 Dr. G.L. Jaipal, it is very much ;leaf- that the accused respondent Rajaram received three injuries by short to jun fire arm, but the same were of simple nature.Injury report and post mortem report of deceased accused Rameshwarlal 20. PW11 Dr. G.L. Jaipal has further stated in his statement recorded in court that on 20.5.1995 at about 11.15 PM, he medically examined deceased accused Rameshwarlal and found the following injuries on his body:- (1) ? Gun shot wound 0.8X0.8 X? deep on Rt. thigh lower ⅓ anteriorly cm above knee joint, (2) ? G.S. wound 0.8X 0.8cm X? deep on Rt. thigh 5cm above knee joint anteriorly. (3) ? G.S. wound 3.4 X 1cm X? deep on Rt. buttock at middle ⅓ on lateral aspect. (4) ? G.S. wound 0.8 X 0.8cmX? deep on abdomen 3cm below and Rt. side to umbilicus. (5) ? G.S. wound 0.8 X 0.8crn X? deep on hypochondrium region. He has further stated that for the above injuries, he advised for X-rays and thereafter, X-rays were got conducted. He has proved the injury report Ex.D/14A.He has further stated that thereafter, on 22.5.1995 at about 10.10 AM, the deceased accused Rameshwarlal died and the post mortem of his dead body was conducted on 23.5.1995 at about 11.05 AM by the Medical Board aid he was one of the members of that Medical Board and following injuries were found on his body:- "(1) Wound of entrance 0.8X 0.8cm X ? deep on Rt. thigh at lower ⅓ anteriorly 15cm above the knee joint. (2) Wound of entrance 3.4Cm X 1cm X? deep on Rt. thigh Buttock of its upper aspect laterally. (3) Wound of entrance 0.8 X 0.8 X ? deep on right thigh just above the knee joint anteriorly. deep on Rt. thigh at lower ⅓ anteriorly 15cm above the knee joint. (2) Wound of entrance 3.4Cm X 1cm X? deep on Rt. thigh Buttock of its upper aspect laterally. (3) Wound of entrance 0.8 X 0.8 X ? deep on right thigh just above the knee joint anteriorly. (4) Stitched wound about 1crn long on abdomen 3cm below and Rt. side to the umbilicus. (5) Wound of entrance 0.8X 0.8cm X? deep in Rt. hypochondrium region. On dissectionInjury No. 1There is extravasation of clotted blood is present in the sub-cut tissue and muscles. The track traced running obliquely, downward, inwards and in the muscular plane Anterior to the thigh bone. The pellet recovered just underneath the skin in medial side of thigh. The total depth of track is measuring about 14cm.Injury No. 2There is extravasation of clotted blood underneath sub-cut tissue and muscles. The track is traced running obliquely downwards and inwards. The depth of track is about 2.5cm. The pellet is ,recovered at its above depth i.e. 2.5cm. Further on seeing the extravasation of the clotted blood in soft tissue the track was further traced and at a distance of 3.2cm from the i pellet of this track the II pellet is recovered and thus total depth of track is 5.7cm.Injury No. 3There is extravasation of clotted blood in the sub-cut tissue and the muscles. The track is running obliquely downward, inward at a depth of 3.2cm from its entrance, in the muscle mass a pellet is recovered. In the region there was extravasation of clotted blood is seen in muscular plane of thigh anterio medically in its distal 1/2 of the thigh. So in the same plane dissection were carried out along the course of major vessels of thigh. In view of X-ray findings and on palpation it was found to be a pellet like hard mass in the saphanous vein. The saphanous vein in situ dissected and the pellet was recovered in the lumen of the vein just distal to the sapheno femoral junction, the pellet is found to be surrounded by blood clots, lower down the pellet the dissection of saphanous vein was made and in the level of poplitaeal fossa there was a tear in the saphanous vein measuring about 0.7X 0.7cm is found.Injury No. 4On dissection it is directed downwards inwards backwards upto peritoneal cavity. Peritoneum is seen stitched. Peritoneum is seen stitched. There is extravasation of clotted blood is present in soft tissue underneath the injury.Injury No. 5 There is extravasation of blood is present in the sub-cut tissue and muscles of the abdominal wall. The track is entering in the peritoneal cavity. There is a through and through lac. wound 0.7 X 0.6cm in the Rt. lobe of liver just above the inferior border on antero lateral surface and coming out through the inferior surface in the region of fundus of gall bladder. The total thickness transversed in the substance of liver tissue is 0.5cm X Adjacent part of fundus of gall bladder found to be stitched than the track is passing through transverse colon, jejenum, omentum in these the stitched wound are seen which is repaired during leprotomy operation. Then the track is reaching to the pelvic cavity on left side where a pellet was recovered from soft tissue just anterior to the iliac bone. The whole track is directed downwards, inwards (Rt. to left) & backwards. The peritoneal cavity is containing clotted and fluid blood about 1 litre. On further dissection of retropertitoneal space there was markedly extravasation of clotted blood is found in the both peri nephric region. The Aorta is found to be ligated at 3 places about its bifurcation." He has further stated that for above injuries, X-rays of various parts of the body of the deceased accused Rameshwarlal were taken and six pellets were recovered from his body during the post mortem. The cause of death of the deceased Rameshwarlal was opined in the following manner:- "The cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result from multiple intra abdominal injuries caused by pellets of short gun fire arm. The injuries No. 4 and 5 are collectively as well as individually are sufficient to cause death in ordinary nature of course." He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/D16A. 21. Thus, from the statement of PW11 Dr. The injuries No. 4 and 5 are collectively as well as individually are sufficient to cause death in ordinary nature of course." He has proved the post mortem report Ex.P/D16A. 21. Thus, from the statement of PW11 Dr. G.L. Jaipal, it is very much clear that the deceased accused Rameshwarlal received injuries by short gun fire arm and six pellets were recovered from his body and he died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple intra abdominal injuries caused by pellets of short gun fire arm and furthermore, his injuries No. 4 and 5 collectively and individually were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 22. Hence, the death of the deceased accused Rameshwarlal was not natural one, but it was homicidal and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. Post Mortem Report of the deceased Ramnarayan 23. PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami in his statement recorded in Court to has stated that on 21.5.1995, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased accused Ramnarayan was conducted by the Medical Board and he was one of the members of that Medical Board and the following injuries were found on his body:- "(1) Abrasion extending from lateral aspect of the lower abdominal is wall, left inguinal region, whole of glutal region and anterior lateral aspect of the upper ⅓ of thigh. Fluctuating haematoma present underneath the whole length of abrasion. On section about 1.5 litre blood drained and whole length of glutal and lower back muscles found to be lacerated. (2) Lacerated wound oval shaped measuring 7cm X 5cm X muscle deep on the enter lateral aspect of the thigh to the mid ingunial region. On dissection, temporal vein was found to be torn. (3) Abrasion 7cm X2cm on right posterior axillary line of the chest wall. (4) Fracture-dislocation of the Right meta carpo phalangeal joint of the Right index finger. (5) Abrasion 5cm X 2cm on dorsum of right hand. (6) Lacerated wound the base of Right middle finger on palmar aspect measuring 2.5cm X 1cm X muscle deep. (7) Lacerated wound measuring 2.5cm X 1cm X muscle deep in the centre of the Right little finger on the palmar aspect. (5) Abrasion 5cm X 2cm on dorsum of right hand. (6) Lacerated wound the base of Right middle finger on palmar aspect measuring 2.5cm X 1cm X muscle deep. (7) Lacerated wound measuring 2.5cm X 1cm X muscle deep in the centre of the Right little finger on the palmar aspect. (8) Abrasion measuring 3cte X 1.5cm on left elbow." The cause of death of deceased accused Ramnarayan was opined in the following manner:- "In our opinion, on the basis of fore-mentioned post mortem findings, we have come to a conclusion that the death has resulted from haemorrhagic shock." He has proved the post mortem report Ex.D/9A. 24. Thus, from the statement of PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami, it is clear that the deceased accused Ramnarayan received 8 injuries on his body and the cause of his death was haemorrhagic shock. 25. Hence, the death of the deceased accused Ramnarayan was not natural one, but it was homicidal and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in this respect are liable to be confirmed one.Post Mortem Report of deceased accused Mohanlal 26. PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami has further stated in his statement recorded in Court that on 21.5.1995 at about 11.30 AM, the post mortem of he dead body of the deceased accused Mohanlal was also conducted and he following injuries were found on his body:- "(1) Circular 1cm X 1cm diameter margins inverted surrounded by .5cm of dark brown coloured abrasions, situated below left clevical midway below ear from left nipple below ant. of lateral ⅓rd and medial ⅔ of the clevical (L). On further dissection of the wound under lying his showed wound 1.75 X 1.5cm, under lying #2nd rib #. Muscle (intercostal) corresponding to injury showed haematoma. Wound extended with the thoracic cavity. (2) Circular .75cm X .75cm in diameter surrounded by oval shaped collar of 2cm X1 cm dark brown abrasion around the wound situated between the (L) nipple and mid sternal line in the lower of nipple. On further dissection wound 1cm X 1 cm on the underlying intercostal muscle with haemorrhage corresponding costochondral junction # and. There was a corresponding would inside the thoracic cavity. Margins slightly inverted. (3) Oval shaped .5cm X .3cm cavity deep. in mid axillary line on the lateral wall of chest at the level of nipple. On dissection, Hs showed 1cm x .5cm wound with surrounding haematoma. There was a corresponding would inside the thoracic cavity. Margins slightly inverted. (3) Oval shaped .5cm X .3cm cavity deep. in mid axillary line on the lateral wall of chest at the level of nipple. On dissection, Hs showed 1cm x .5cm wound with surrounding haematoma. (4) Circular .75cm X .75cm diameter surrounded by .5cm broad collar of dark brown coloured. Stitched in 7th intercostal space in anterior axillary. Wound towards cavity deep. Surrounding Hs underneath the wound shown 1crnOt cm wound with haematoma all around. Margins inverted. (5) Oval shaped 1 cm X .5cm surrounded by .5cm broad dark brown coloured abrasions. 3cm below the injury number 4. On dissection intercostal muscle underneath showed wound 1.75cm X .1cm cavity deep lowered the abdominal cavity. Surrounding intercostal muscle showed haematoma. Margins slightly inverted. (6) Oval shaped .5cm X 3cm margin interveted surrounded by .3cm broad dark brown margin of abrasion situated 3cm above and lateral to injury No. 4. It was cavity deep directed lowered the abdominal cavity underlying intercostal Hs showed 1cm X ,75cm wound. (7&8) Two circular each measuring .3cm X .3cm with .3cm broad dark brown coloured abraded collar, About 2.5cm about on the upper ⅓rd of (L) upper arm on the ant. lateral aspect. On dissection 2 pellet measuring .75cm X .5cm X .3cm weighting 1.500 gms. were recovered. (9) Circular .3cm X .3cm cavity deep surrounded by .3cm broad dark coloured abraded collar. Margins inverted." He has further stated that eight pellets were recovered from the body of the deceased accused Mohanlal. The cause of death was opined in the following manner:- "In our opinion, on the basis of fore mentioned post mortem findings, we have come to a conclusion that the death has resulted from haemorrhagic shock because of the injuries to the vital organs." He has proved the post mortem report Ex.D/10A. 27. Thus, from the statement of PW12 Dr. Ghanshyam Swami, it is clear that the deceased accused Mohanlal received 9 injuries by fire arm and 8 pellets were recovered from his body and the cause of his death was haemorrhagic shock because of the injuries to the vital organs. 28. Hence, the death of the deceased accused Mohanlal was not natural one, but it was homicidal and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. 29. 28. Hence, the death of the deceased accused Mohanlal was not natural one, but it was homicidal and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. 29. What would be the effect of the injuries received by the accused respondent Rajaram and death of deceased accused Mohanlal, Rameshwarlal and Ramnarayan in the same incident, the same would be 1 discussed later on at the appropriate place. 30. Before proceedings further, it may be stated here that since this is a State appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, some thing should be said about the scope of interference by the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. 31. In Molu v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2499 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court should be alive to the following propositions regarding interference in an appeal against an order of acquittal:- (i) the slowness of the Appellate Court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the non-interference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court. 32. It is well settled that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible one favouring acquittal and the other conviction, the High Court should not reverse the order of acquittal and for that, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 1782 ; Dinanath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1980 SC 1199 and Tara Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 950 may be referred to. 33. It may be stated here that in appeal against an order of acquittal, he powers of the High Court are not different from its powers in an ordinary appeal against conviction. The additional burden which is placed on the High Court is that it has to consider each of the grounds which had prompted the trial court to pass the order of acquittal and to record its own reasons for not agreeing with the trial court. The additional burden which is placed on the High Court is that it has to consider each of the grounds which had prompted the trial court to pass the order of acquittal and to record its own reasons for not agreeing with the trial court. In this respect, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 3255 ; Hassan Ahmed Mai Ishav v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 437 and Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 817 may be referred to. 34. Although in an appeal from an order of acquittal the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (i) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (iv) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Shaven Patel v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 may be referred to. 35. It is well settled that in appeal against acquittal the High Court is so enlled to re-appreciate the evidence if it is found that the view taken by acquitting court was not a possible view or that it was a perverse or infirm or palpably erroneous view. 35. It is well settled that in appeal against acquittal the High Court is so enlled to re-appreciate the evidence if it is found that the view taken by acquitting court was not a possible view or that it was a perverse or infirm or palpably erroneous view. For that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harichand v. State of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 1477 may be referred to. 36. Thus, the principles governing and regulating the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial court, as set out in innumerable cases, may be summarised in the following manner:- (1) That in an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. (2) That the High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (3) That before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. (4) That is reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court. (5) That if the High Court. on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted. (6) That the High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box. (6) That the High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court, especially in the witness box. (7) That the High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. 37. Keeping the above principles in mind, the present State appeal is to be decided. 38. In this case, two witnesses, namely, PW2 Ramnarayan and PW4 Banwarilal are injured witnesses and since they are injured witnesses, therefore, their presence on the scene cannot be doubted in any manner, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avdesh and ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1995 SC 375 . In this respect, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC (Cr) 355 may also be referred to. 39. PW2 Ramnarayan has been declared hostile. 40. PW4 Banwarilal in his statement recorded in Court has stated that the members of the accused respondent party came in a Truck and they were armed with weapons and first the deceased accused Rameshwarlal gave sela blow on the chest of PW2 Ramnarayan and thereafter, the accused respondent Hansraj caused injuries to him by jayee and the accused respondent Bhagchand also caused injuries to him by lathi and thereafter, so the members of the accused respondent party tried to kill deceased Maniram and in his self defence, the deceased Maniram made fire by pistol and then, deceased Maniram was beaten by the members of the accused respondent party by sela, barchi, jayee, Iathi etc. and thereafter, the accused respondent Genaram asked the other members of the accused respondent party to bring truck and a truck was brought, which was being driven by the accused respondent Om Prakash and by that truck, the wall of his house was broken and as a result of which deceased accused Ramnarayan came beneath the s truck and died and thereafter, all the members of the accused respondents party raw away.In cross-examination, he has admitted the following facts:- (1) That why quarrel took place, he cannot say. (2) That none of the members of the accused respondent party to was armed with pistol. (3) That he did not see any injury on the person of the deceased accused Mohanlal. (4) That he cannot say how deceased accused Mohanlal died. (5) That he did not see any injury on the person of the deceased is accused Rameshwarlal and he cannot say how he died. (6) That he saw accused respondent Rajaram on the scene, but he did not see any injury on his person. (7) That for the murder of three persons, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan, members of the complainant party including himself are facing trial. (8) That deceased Manirarn did not receive any injury in the house. 41. Another star witness of this case is PW3 Rampratap, who gave the pa rcha bayan Ex.P/9 to PW15 Tara Chand and he has stated in examination-in-chief in the same manner as stated by PW4 Banwarilal and in cross-examination, he has admitted the following facts:- (1) That now deceased accused Mohanlal died, he cannot say (2) That the truck ran over the legs of deceased accused Ramnarayan. 42. PW15 Tara Chand of the present case, has further admitted in his cross examination. (1) That no member of the accused respondent party was having any fire arm. (2) That pallets were recovered from the body of the deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Mohanlal and also from the person of accused respondent Rajaram and the same were sent for chemical analysis. (3) That it is also correct to say that at the time of alleged occurrence, deceased accused Rameshwarlal, deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan belonging to the accused respondent party, were not having any fire arm. 43. Thus, from the statements of PW3 Rampratap and PW4 Banwarilal, who are star witnesses of the present case, it is very well established that they are not explaining the injuries and death of the deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Rameshwarlal and furthermore, they are not explaining the injuries found on the person of the accused respondent Rajaram and further, they are not explaining all injuries received by another deceased accused Ramnarayan and incident took place not in the house but outside house. 44. 44. The question for consideration is what would be the effect of non explanation of injuries and death of deceased accused Rameshwarlal, deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan and injuries of accused respondent Rajaram on the veracity and testimony of the witnesses, namely, 13W3 Rampratap and PW4 Banwarilal and on prosecution case as a whole.Non-explanation of injuries of accused respondent Rajaram and death of the deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan. 45. It may be stated here that in criminal trial, if the injuries are received by the accused party and they are not discussed, that trial is incomplete in true o sense and may also affect the case of the prosecution and, therefore, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution that in criminal trial, it should explain the injuries received by the accused party and it is also the duty of the court that it must also keep this aspect in mind while finalising the guilt of the accused. 46. In Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1975 SC 1703 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow:- "(i) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self-defence. (ii) That it makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (iii) That it does not affect the prosecution case at all." 47. In Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:- "(i) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version. (ii) That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and their evidence is unreliable. (ii) That the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and their evidence is unreliable. (iii) That in case there is defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case." 48. In this respect, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagawan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 21 ; Omkarnath Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1550 ; Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1979 SC 1010 and State of Karnataka v. Jinappa Payappa Kudachi, 1993 Cr LJ 3915 (SC) may also be referred to. 49. Thus, from the above authorities, the law on the point of non-explanation of injuries on the person of accused party may be summarised in the following manner:- (1) That failure to explain injuries on the person of the accused is not always fatal to the prosecution case. (2) That no doubt the prosecution is bound to explain injuries on the accused, but before this obligation is placed it must be proved that first, the injuries on the accused are very serious, secondly, these injuries had been caused at the time of the occurrence in question. (3) That the effect of non-explanation of injuries on the person of the accused is not a question of law but a question of fact and therefore, non-explanation is not always fatal to the prosecution case, but the fact of failure to explain is to be taken into account to test the truth of the prosecution case and the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. (4) That the effect of non-explanation by the prosecution about the injuries on the accused persons depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in such matter, (5) That normally if there is such non- explanation, it may at the most give scope to argue that the accused had the right of private defence or in general that the prosecution evidence should be rejected as they have not come with the whole truth, particularly regarding the genesis of the occurrence. (6) That in some cases, if the accused party had caused murder of some members of the complainant party and in the scuffle by way of reprisal some accused got injuries at the hands of the complainant party, in such a situation, the obligation on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence may not arise. 50. Keeping the above principles in mind, it is to be seen whether non explanation of injuries on the person of the accused respondent Rajaram and death of the deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan by the prosecution has affected the case of the prosecution or not. 51. In the present case, we should not forget that tram the side of accused respondent party, three persons, namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Ramnarayan and deceased accused Rarneshwarlal died and one person, namely, accused respondent Rajaram received fire arm injuries and there is also no doubt on the point that in the same incident, from the side of complainant party, one person, namely, deceased Maniram died and PW2 Ramnarayan and PW4 Canwarilal received injuries. 52. There is also no dispute on the point that deceased Maniram did not receive any fire arm injuries meaning thereby the members of the present accused party were not armed with fire arms. The fact that thee deceased accused persons, namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Ramnarayan and deceased accused Rameshwarlal and one accused respondent Rajaram from the side of accused party received fire arm injuries itself reflects that the members of the complainant party were armed with fire arms. 53. It is also not in dispute that deceased Maniram was armed with firearm and a member of the prosecution party, some of whose members viz. Banwari, Bastiram, Ramnarayan and Mohanlal were also armed with firearms. Deceased Maniram had opened fire like other members of his group on the accused party. None of the accused party had firearm with them. Three persons out of accused party died of firearm injuries. Thus, Maniram was a member of the group who had threatened life of the opposite group with use of firearms in which three persons actually died. Deceased Maniram had opened fire like other members of his group on the accused party. None of the accused party had firearm with them. Three persons out of accused party died of firearm injuries. Thus, Maniram was a member of the group who had threatened life of the opposite group with use of firearms in which three persons actually died. This highly probablise that Maniram had died as a result of exercise of right of private defence by the accused persons and it can also be safely concluded in the circumstances that accused did not exceed in exercise of their right of private defence. 54. Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances just narrated above, when from the side of the accused respondent party, three persons, namely, deceased accused Rameshwarlal, deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan were murdered and one person, namely, s accused respondent Rajaram received fire arm injuries and in the same incident, from the side of complainant party, one person deceased Maniram died and PW2 Ramnarayan and PW4 Banwarilal received simple injuries and further, the members of the accused respondent party were not armed with fire arms while the members of the complainant party were armed with fire arms, therefore, in these circumstances, if the prosecution has failed to explain how the deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarial and deceased accused Ramnarayan received injuries and died and how the accused respondent Rajaram received injuries, in our considered opinion, it would affect the case of the prosecution and the facts just narrated above clearly revealed that there was possibility that in the scuffle when three persons from the side of accused respondent party were murdered by the members of the complainant party, by way of reprisal or in right of private defence or self-defence, the members of the accused respondent party would have caused the injuries . to the deceased Maniram and PW2 Ramnarayan and PW4 Banwarilal and it further appears that the members of the complainant party were aggressors and they had acted in cruel and unusual manner in murdering the three deceased accused namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Ramnarayan and deceased accused Rameshwarlal. 55. to the deceased Maniram and PW2 Ramnarayan and PW4 Banwarilal and it further appears that the members of the complainant party were aggressors and they had acted in cruel and unusual manner in murdering the three deceased accused namely, deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Ramnarayan and deceased accused Rameshwarlal. 55. For the reasons stated above, the result of the above discussion is as follows: (1) That in the present case, non-explanation of injuries and death of deceased accused Mohanlal, deceased accused Rameshwarlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan and injuries of accused respondent Rajaram by the prosecution affects the testimony of PW3 Rampratap and PW4 Banwarilal and thus it is fatal to the prosecution case. (2) That the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and have not come with true picture. (3) That the possibility that the accused respondent party had caused injuries to the members of the complainant party in the right of self-defence cannot be ruled out. (4) That it makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused respondents cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 56. In the above circumstances, if the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), after considering the entire evidence and material available on record including the defence evidence, has come to the conclusion that since three persons, namely, deceased accused Rameshwarlal, deceased accused Mohanlal and deceased accused Ramnarayan from the side of accused respondent party died in the same incident, therefore, the possibility that in reprisal and in the right of private defence or self-defence, the members of the accused respondent party would have caused injuries to the deceased Maniram, as a result of which he died and to PW3 Rampratap and PW4 Banwarilal cannot be ruled out and therefore, no offence was committed by the accused respondents, he has committed no illegality or irregularity in doing so. The above conclusion cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous and on the contrary, it is based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record including defence evidence. 57. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material or evidence. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned Addl. 57. The findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) cannot be said to be perverse or based on no material or evidence. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in acquitting the accused respondents was manifestly erroneous and the conclusions were wholly perverse. The main grounds, on the basis of which, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) has passed the order of acquittal of accused respondents, appear to be reasonable and plausible, if they are examined in broad perspective looking to the evidence available on record including the defence version. Hence, the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) do not require any interference by this Court. 58. Apart from this, if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record the High Court should refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. From this point of view also, no interference is called for with the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track). 59. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) and all contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor stand rejected and this State appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed, after confirming the impugned judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bikaner. Appeal Dismissed, Acquittal Sustained. *******