( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Addl. SPP, as also all the three learned counsel who represent the ten accused, who are respondents to this appeal on merits. Mr. Naik, the learned counsel, who represents the first respondent, states that it is true that his client has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded a sentence of life imprisonment. This accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1524/03 and, the Court will consider the validity or otherwise of the conviction and sentence in that appeal. Mr. Naik has limited his submission as far as this appeal is concerned, that the trial Court has very rightly, in well considered Judgment, held that the accused No. 1 cannot be held liable for any of the remaining heads of charges and had acquitted him and that as far as these charges are concerned that the present appeal field by the state on the basis of this record is unsustainable. After a very careful review of the record and in particular the judgment, we up hold this submission as far as the accused No. 1 is concerned. While, we clarify that this finding has nothing further to do with the merits of the appeal filed by this accused, we confirm the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as far as accused No. 1 is concerned. The validity or otherwise of his conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC will be considered independently by the Court when Crl. A. No. 1524/2003 is heard, de-hors anything which is observed in this judgment. ( 2 ) THE learned Addl. SPP submitted that the medical evidence conclusively establishes that the deceased sustained several injuries that could only have been caused through iron rods and that therefore, the accused 2 to 10, who are alleged to have assaulted the accused with iron rods, will have to be convicted. His submission is that, all the heads of charges under which these accused persons have been acquitted, including the charge of rioting and unlawful assembly, which fastens the deemed liability on them, even for the offence of murder will have to be interfered with and that the trail Court was wrong in having drawn a distinction between the accused No. 1 and the remaining accused. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel, who represent accused 2 to 10, have advanced an interesting submission, which is also a submission of considerable substance. First of all, they pointed out that the recovery evidence has been rejected by the trail Court and that having regard to the state of the record and the non-production of the documents containing the voluntary statement that this finding will have to be confirmed. To this extent, we uphold the finding with regard to the recovery as recorded by the trial court. ( 4 ) NEXT, what they submitted is that once the recovery evidence is rejected, the prosecution case that accused 2 to 10 were armed with iron rods, becomes vulnerable. What is submitted by them is that if the prosecution case were to be accepted by this Court, it would mean that nine persons armed with iron rods, have assaulted the deceased, in which case he would have been virtually paralysed. If, nine persons assaulted the deceased with iron rods, according to the learned counsel, it would have been reasonable to except multiple fractures and atleast 20 to 30 injuries other than one caused by the sharp weapon. This is one of the main reasons why the learned trial Judge had acquitted the accused 2 to 10 because in his considered view it is impossible to up-hold the prosecution case that these nine persons armed with an iron rod had assaulted the deceased. ( 5 ) THAT brings us to the next stage of argument whereby any of these nine accused independently or collectively were participants in the assault. The prosecution evidence is virtually in shambles so far as this aspect of the case is concerned because there is neither sustainable nor reliable implication as far as these accused are concerned. Had the witnesses shown some degree of reliability and consistency in implicating one or more of these accused persons, we would certainly have upheld the evidence and reversed the order of acquittal so far as they are concerned. Unfortunately, when we read the prosecution evidence as a whole, it does not make out a good enough case for convicting any of these accused under any of the charges. Unfortunately, when we read the prosecution evidence as a whole, it does not make out a good enough case for convicting any of these accused under any of the charges. ( 6 ) THOUGH, it is more or less customary, where there is an appeal against conviction, to admit the cross-appeal filed by the State and direct that both the appeals should be heard together, the learned counsel representing the accused have perhaps very rightly pointed out to us that the High Court should not under any circumstances, mechanically entertain an appeal unless it is individually and independently sustainable because grave consequences would emanate even from the admission of such appeals. ( 7 ) IN this regard, we need to observe that the High Court is required to be realistic and practical and the Court is also required to adopt an understanding approach and not mechanically admit appeals and set them down for hearing, because one or more accused are convicted and another appeal is pending. We clarify that, if without due and proper application of mind, the appeal against acquittal in a case of this nature is entertained, the consequences to the respondents-accused are traumatic, apart from the Sword of Democles which is hanging over them until the disposal of the appeal. They are required to be arrested, they are required to furnish surety and they are put to considerable expenditure and turmoil, until the appeal is disposed of. It is for this reason, when the respondents learned counsel requested the Court today and we heard this appeal on merits, it was their contention that the State appeal so far as accused 2 to 10 are concerned is unjustified and that it should be dismissed on merits at this stage. We agreed to consider this plea. After hearing the learned counsel and after reviewing the record thoroughly, we do uphold the position that the appeal against the acquittal so far as these accused are concerned would be unjustified. It is pointless to entertain this appeal as even at the final hearing stage there could be no other result. We reiterate that it is the duty of the Court in all such cases to review the cross appeal independently and not to adopt a loose or mechanical approach particularly in matters of seriousness of this type. It is pointless to entertain this appeal as even at the final hearing stage there could be no other result. We reiterate that it is the duty of the Court in all such cases to review the cross appeal independently and not to adopt a loose or mechanical approach particularly in matters of seriousness of this type. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of all the accused on the charges which are the subject matter of this appeal, stands dismissed on merits. For the reasons set out in IA-I the delay is condoned and IA-I is allowed. --- *** --- .