S. R. DONGAONKAR, J.:- By this appeal, appellant State seeks to challenge the acquittal of the respondents, who were acquitted of the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also sections 147 and 148, read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Trial No.3/1986 by the judgment dated 20.7.1992 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha. 2. Respondents were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences on the allegations that the accused persons are residents of village Arvi (Lahan). One Baba Nagorao Katore was also resident of the said village. Respondents (accused) are related to each other [respondents, hereinafter referred to as accused for the sake of convenience]. Accused no.l Pandhari and accused not Bhaskar are the sons of accused no.3 Chindhu. Accused no.6 Suresh and 7 Shankar are real brothers and sons of accused no.5 Ganpat. Deceased Baba Katore was living with his mother Kauslyabai & father Nagorao. On the date of incident, complainant P.W.l Kausalyabai i.e. mother of the deceased, had called her daughter and son in law Dnyaneshwar P.W.7 for lunch, in view of the auspicious day of “Pitromoksha Amavsaya”. It is alleged that prior to the date of incident i.e. on 13.10.1985, i.e. 2-3 days prior, accused no.5 Ganpat and accused no.3 Chindhu were abusing the family of the complainant suspecting that the members of the family of the complainant had killed their dog. At the time of incident, when the family of the complainant was performing rituals of Pitrumoksha Amavasya accused persons started abusing for the reason that the deceased Baba had killed Dog of the accused. At that time, son in law of the complainant, P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar and the daughter had come there. The meals were ready at about 6.00 p.m. Deceased Baba, P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar and complainant P.W.l Kausalyabai were all ready for the meals. At that time all the accused who were having sticks in their hands, rushed towards the house of the complainant & deceased Baba. Accused no. 1 Pandhari was ahead of all of them. It is alleged that these accused started beating Baba. Complainant Kausalyabai tried to save him, but in vain. Deceased Baba in order to save himself from the hits of the sticks, tried to run away. At that time accused no. Accused no. 1 Pandhari was ahead of all of them. It is alleged that these accused started beating Baba. Complainant Kausalyabai tried to save him, but in vain. Deceased Baba in order to save himself from the hits of the sticks, tried to run away. At that time accused no. 8 Bandu brought an axe and he gave forceful blow of the axe on the head of Baba. He fell on the ground. He suffered bleeding injury on the head. It is alleged that the accused beat Dnyaneshwar with stone which was lying in the lane. After beating; all the accused threw away sticks in the lane. But, accused Pandhari took away the axe with him and all the accused left the place saying that Baba was no more. The mob of the people had gathered there. Complainant P.W.l Kausalyabai went near Baba and after seeing him, she became unconscious and fell on the ground. At that time there were one Prabhakar Ugemuge and one Dashrath Naik in the mob. Thereafter P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar, P.W.l Kausalyabai and others arranged for bullock-cart and took injured Baba to Primary Health Centre Wadner. They came upto village Daruda and thereafter boarded in S.T. Bus for coming to Wadner. They came to Wadner where they went to Police Station. P.W.l Kausalyabai lodged report against accused at P.S. Complainant Kausalyabai had put up her thumb impression on the report. P.S.I. Deshmukh of Police Station, Wadner got recorded the same and registered offence vide crime no.76/1985 for the offence under section 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Injured Baba was sent to P.H.C. Wadner. The statement of P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar was also recorded on the next day morning. P.S.I. Deshmukh came to know that the injured Baba had expired, so he prepared inquest Panchanama, sent the dead body of Baba for autopsy and added offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal in the same crime no. 76/1985. He also went to the spot, and prepared Panchanama of the scene of offence. Wife of deceased Baba produced the sticks the same were seized. P.S.I. Deshmukh also seized blood stained earth from the spot. He recorded statements of the witnesses in due course. He arrested the accused persons. He also seized an axe on memorandum statement of accused no. 1 Pandhari. Wife of deceased Baba produced the sticks the same were seized. P.S.I. Deshmukh also seized blood stained earth from the spot. He recorded statements of the witnesses in due course. He arrested the accused persons. He also seized an axe on memorandum statement of accused no. 1 Pandhari. He sent seized articles, including clothes, to Chemical Analyser for report and after receipt of report and due investigation, he submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat. 3. On committal of the case, bearing Sessions Trial No.3/1986, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha framed charge for the aforesaid offences against the accused. They pleaded not guilty to the same. Their defence is that of total denial. They admitted certain documents filed on record. The prosecution led evidence of 8 witnesses. P.W.l Kausalyabai is mother of the deceased who had lodged report Ex.69. P.W.5 Prabhakar Ugemuge, P.W.6 Dashrath Dhatrak, and P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar Tadas are the alleged eyewitnesses to the incident. It is necessary to note that P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar is the brother in law of the deceased and also allegedly injured in the incident. P.W.2 Baban and P.W.3 Vasanta, are the panch witnesses to the alleged memorandum statement of accused no.l Pandhari who discovered the axe. P.W.4 Dr. Lalitkumar Kose is Medical Officer of Rural Hospital at Wadner. He examined deceased Baba when he was admitted in the hospital, whose injury certificate is at EX.93. He had also examined P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar & Nagorao, and had issued an opinion regarding the axe Ex.98. P.W.8 P.S.I. Deshmukh is the Investigating Officer he has registered offence as per Ex.l03, prepared spot Panchanama Ex.73, seized sticks as per Ex.74, and clothes of the deceased as per EX.75. He had seized an axe on the memorandum statement of the accused no. 1 Pandhari EX.79 as per Ex.80, received C.A. Report Ex. 104. He had prepared inquest Panchanama Ex.46. Relevant P.M. Report of deceased Baba is EX.77. As per P.M. report, deceased had died due to shock due to head injury [sub-dural hemorrhage and fracture of skull]. 4. With this evidence, the prosecution sought to establish the case against accused. 5. Accused did not adduce any evidence in their defence. However they produced certified copies of the documents in a criminal case against the deceased and prosecution witnesses which is said to be a counter case, arising out of Crime No.76/1985. 6. 4. With this evidence, the prosecution sought to establish the case against accused. 5. Accused did not adduce any evidence in their defence. However they produced certified copies of the documents in a criminal case against the deceased and prosecution witnesses which is said to be a counter case, arising out of Crime No.76/1985. 6. Learned trial Judge after considering the evidence on record, noticed that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses They have improved the story. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is the evidence of witnesses inimical to the accused and the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence. According to him, the documents filed by the accused, show that there was every possibility and probability of free fight between the accused persons on one side and P.W.S. and deceased Baba on the other. He has further found that as the prosecution has suppressed material facts of the injuries of the accused, though were simple injuries, the prosecution case is not free from doubts and therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt as the prosecution had suppressed material facts. As such he rendered the judgment of acquittal of the accused (Respondents) dated 20.7.1992. 7. This judgment is challenged by the appellant - State. 8. Learned A.P.P. for the State Appellant has contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses includes the evidence of two relation witnesses and two independent eye-witnesses. They have supported prosecution case in material particulars. Although there are some improvements and discrepancies; those are not material. Deceased Baba had died of the injuries suffered in the incident. The evidence of Kausalyabai is supported by the FIR lodged immediately after the incident Accused no.l Pandhari had given fatal blow on the deceased Baba on his head by an axe, the others had given sticks blows and therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses, cannot be disbelieved. According to him, relations namely P.W.I. Kausalyabai and P.W.7 Dnyaneshwarare reliable so also the evidence that of P.W.6 Dashrath and P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar is corroborating evidence of the eye-witnesses and therefore, the prosecution has established the case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. Further he has contended that accused cannot take a plea of right of private defence in as much as they cannot exceed the right of private defence so as to cause death of the deceased. Accused have not lead evidence to prove this entitlement. Further he has contended that accused cannot take a plea of right of private defence in as much as they cannot exceed the right of private defence so as to cause death of the deceased. Accused have not lead evidence to prove this entitlement. He has relied on the decision reported in (2006)4 SCC 512 : 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1190 (S.C.) [State of A.P. Vs. Rayappa and others] to contend that merely because witnesses are related to the deceased they can not be said to be interested witnesses and on that ground alone their testimony can not be rejected. He further relied on judgments of the Apex Court reported in (2006) SCC 678 : [2007 ALL SCR 1324] [Raj Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana]. and (2006)9 SCC 307 [Dhaneshwar Mahakud and others Vs. State of Orissa] to contend that the accused had exceeded the right of private defence without any justification and therefore, they are liable for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or at least under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, apart from the offence under sections 147, 148 read with section 149 of the Indian penal Code inasmuch as one of the members of the unlawful assembly was holding an axe i.e. deadly weapon. He has specifically submitted that here is the case where the appellate court should intervene to set aside judgment of acquittal impugned in this appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that learned trial judge, has rightly disbelieved the evidence of alleged eye witnesses. According to him the FIR in the present case was totally fabricated to meet out the case alleged & lodged by the accused. In fact it was the case of the accused, in Crime No.76/85 against deceased Baba and others. According to him, evidence of alleged eyewitnesses namely P.W.5 Prabhakar, P.W.6 Dashrath, P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar, is totally unreliable and unnatural. According to him the FIR in the present case was totally fabricated to meet out the case alleged & lodged by the accused. In fact it was the case of the accused, in Crime No.76/85 against deceased Baba and others. According to him, evidence of alleged eyewitnesses namely P.W.5 Prabhakar, P.W.6 Dashrath, P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar, is totally unreliable and unnatural. He has also taken us through evidence of P.W.8 P.S.I. Deshmukh to contend that the counter case in this case at the instance of the accused is clearly established & it shows that the accused had suffered serious injuries and the said case should have been tried together with this case and in fact genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution and the injuries on the person of the accused No.1 has not been explained and therefore, according to him, as right of private defence can not be weighed in golden scale; it was sufficient to accord benefit of doubt to accused. Even otherwise, it has to be held that the defence has established probability of exercise of right of private defence, if not a case of denial. He has also, relied on certain authorities to contend that as this is an appeal against acquittal, the judgment of the learned trial Judge cannot be interfered with unless there are compelling and strong reasons and unless the judgment of the learned trial Judge is perverse. He has relied on AIR 1976 SC 2263 [Laxmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar], wherein it has been held: “In a murder case, 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 inference: (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are trying on a most material point and therefore, their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a 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." He has also relied on AIR 2004 SC 3754 [State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh and others] wherein it has been observed in paragraph 10 thus: “10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants placed before us oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in order to show that view taken by the High Court was perverse. Having given our anxious considerations, we are of the view that the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in doubting veracity of the prosecution case as defence version is probable one and accordingly impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by it cannot be said to be perverse in any manner so as to be interfered with by this Court more so when in the present case, it cannot be said that only one view is possible but here is a case where two views are possible. It is well settled that in a case where two views are possible, one of acquittal and the other of conviction, the higher court should not interfere with the order of acquittal impugned before it. This being the position, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents of the charges. He further relied on 2004 Cri.L.J. 640 (S.C.) [Ramanand Yadao Vs. Prabhu Nath Jha and others] wherein in paragraph 21 it has been observed : “21. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. [See Bhagwan Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( 2002(2) Supreme 567 )]. The principle to be followed by appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiable eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Shahabrao Bobade and another Vs. State of Maharashtra (l973(3)SCC 193); Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat [ 1996(4) Supreme 167 ]; Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana ( 2000(3) Supreme 320 ); Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others ( 2003(7) Supreme 152 ); State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh (2003(5)Supreme 508 and State of Punjab V. Pohla Singh and another - (2003(7)Supreme 17).” He also referred to the decision of this court reported in 2003 Cri.L.J. 3639 : [2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1441] [State of Maharashtra Vs. Haribhau Krishnaji Deshmukh & others], wherein it has been observed in a paragraph 22 thus: “22. In our opinion, the scope and extent of powers of the High Court under Section 379 of the 1978 Code is well defined and has been disclosed by the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court of India. In our opinion, the consistent and well settled law on the point is that the High Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only. (1) The appreciation of evidence by the trial court is perverse or the conclusion drawn by it cannot be drawn on any view of the evidence. (2) Where the application of law is improperly done. (3) Where there is substantial omission to consider the evidence existing on record. (4) The view taken by the acquitting Court is impermissible on the evidence on record. (5) If the order of acquittal is allowed to stand it will result in the miscarriage of justice.” 10. (2) Where the application of law is improperly done. (3) Where there is substantial omission to consider the evidence existing on record. (4) The view taken by the acquitting Court is impermissible on the evidence on record. (5) If the order of acquittal is allowed to stand it will result in the miscarriage of justice.” 10. As this is an appeal against acquittal, it is necessary to find out as to whether the judgment of the learned trial judge is perverse to the record and whether there are compelling and strong reasons to overturn the same. It is obvious that merely because the other view is possible, the same would not be liable to be reversed to convict the respondents accused. 11. It is clear that the cause of the death of the deceased is shock due to head injury [subdural hemorrhage and fracture of skull], is a fact not in dispute. Only question is as to how the incident in question had occurred. 12. In this behalf, we have heard learned counsel at length and we have gone through the record with their assistance. 13. It is apparent that in the present case, P.W.1 Kausalyabai who is complainant, has stated about the incident that all the accused had beaten, by sticks to deceased Baba and thereafter, when she tried to save him, accused no.8 Bandu brought an axe, it was taken by accused no.1 Pandhari and then accused Pandhari gave axe blow to deceased Baba. Thereafter, he fell down and thereafter many persons had gathered there, she fell unconscious At that time P.W.S Prabhakar Ugemuge and P.W.6 Dashrath Dhatrak were there and thereafter deceased was taken in bullock cart and then by bus to P.S. Wadner where she lodged report. That means, she was present at the time of incident from beginning to end and also she had tried to save the deceased Baba. The version of P.W.S Prabhakar, P.W.6 Dashrath and P.W.7 Dnyaneshwar, would show that they did not speak about the presence & role of the P.W.1. Kausalyabai in the incident. Their evidence is tainted by improvements. Two of these witnesses are relations of the deceased. 14. We are aware that merely because they are relations, they cannot be disbelieved. But here is a case where all these witnesses do not state anything about the injuries caused to the some of the accused persons in the incident. Kausalyabai in the incident. Their evidence is tainted by improvements. Two of these witnesses are relations of the deceased. 14. We are aware that merely because they are relations, they cannot be disbelieved. But here is a case where all these witnesses do not state anything about the injuries caused to the some of the accused persons in the incident. 15. At this stage, it is necessary to see the evidence of P.S.I. Dehmukh. In his evidence, P.S.I. Deshmukh has stated in cross-examination that it is true that crime no. 75/85 was registered at Wadner Police Station against Devrao, Nagorao, Baba on the report of Pandhari i.e. accused no.1. He had investigated that offence and he had submitted charge sheet against Nagorao and others before J.M.F.C. Hinganghat under sections 324, 323, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and present crime and the said crime no. 75/85 are the counter cases. It is not known as to why these cases were not tried together by same court i.e. Sessions Court in view of the decision of Apex Court in 1980 (Suppl) SCC 499 [Kewal Krishna Vs. Surajbhan]. 16. On perusal of his evidence and further cross-examination it will reveal as to how there are material discrepancies and improvements in the evidence of eye-witnesses. 17. This takes us to consider the FIR of Crime No.75/85, Ex. 107(3), it shows that the complainant was accused no. 1 Pandhari and the accused were Nagorao Katore, Baba Katore deceased, Deorao Chandankhede and Nana Tadas. Allegations were that at 6.00 p.m. on 13.10.1985 i.e. at the time of this incident only, these accused had assaulted his father by means of this. Baba was holding Bichwa, while the remaining three persons were armed with this. When his brother Bhaskar went to separate the quarrel, they assaulted him also by means of this, as a result of which Bhaskar sustained injuries on his head and forehead. Therefore, by putting both of them in the Renghi, he came to lodge the report in P.S. Evidence regarding the other medical examination, can be found in Ex.107(4) and Ex. 107(5). Injuries on the person of the accused 4 Bhaskar are thus: “Lacerated wound over scalp in the mid line extending from frontal bone to parietal bone. Obliquely size 2-1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 Bleeding. Margin irregular, congested. Muscle exposed.” So also. 107(5). Injuries on the person of the accused 4 Bhaskar are thus: “Lacerated wound over scalp in the mid line extending from frontal bone to parietal bone. Obliquely size 2-1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 Bleeding. Margin irregular, congested. Muscle exposed.” So also. injuries on the person of accused Chindhu are thus: “(1) Lacerated wound over seal p extending from frontal bone (Rt.) to frontal bone from midline obliquely placed. Size 11/2 x 1/4 x 1/4 irregular margine contused bleeding + Muscle exposed. Bone not exposed. (2) Lacerated wound Avalsion illegible attached anteriorly other illegible x in the mid line angular in x illegible x approx. towards posteriorly irregular margin contused muscle exposed Bleeding. It is obvious that these injuries were on the heads. The prosecution witnesses did not utter a single word about these injuries. Thus these injuries remained unexplained. Allegations in the report lodged by the accused, and that of the complainant in the case in hand will show that there are allegations of hitting by sticks to each other meaning thereby there was likelihood of free fight. Injuries caused to the accused were on head and therefore serious. The presence of Deorao was no way admitted or explained by the prosecution witnesses. It is clear from the evidence of P.S.I. Deshmukh that-accused Pandhari had gone to police station to lodge the report with injuries just prior to the lodging of the report by Kausalyabai P.W.I. All these things clearly indicate that the prosecution in this case has suppressed the injuries caused to some of the accused. There is likelihood of incident of free fight. Allegations against deceased Baba were of possessing Bichva and therefore, possibility of the accused being afraid of suffering fatal injuries, cannot be overruled.” 18. There is likelihood of incident of free fight. Allegations against deceased Baba were of possessing Bichva and therefore, possibility of the accused being afraid of suffering fatal injuries, cannot be overruled.” 18. In AIR 1976 SC 2263 , Laxmi Singh’s case, the Apex Court has observed thus: “It seems to us 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: (1) That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) 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 therefore their evidence is unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries or the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. 19. In the instant case, when the accused had suffered injuries, there was counter case it was pending still the prosecution witnesses did not tell anything about that. Therefore, their evidence becomes unreliable, for want of plausible explanation. 20. True it is, in this case, son of P.W.l Kausalyabai had expired. But the incident of there being free fight cannot be overruled. Learned trial Judge has taken a view to the effect that they have suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and their evidence is not fully reliable and when he found that the genesis of the occurrence is suppressed and that the evidence of the eye-witnesses is not trustworthy to the extent, as required by canons of criminal jurisprudence for basing the conviction, the impugned judgment cannot be overturned simply because other view is possible. 21. In the present case, even the evidence of memorandum statement of the accused appears to be not sufficiently cogent and convincing inasmuch as the panch witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution. 21. In the present case, even the evidence of memorandum statement of the accused appears to be not sufficiently cogent and convincing inasmuch as the panch witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution. The evidence of P.S.I. Deshmukh, as regards the memorandum statement of accused no. l and consequent discovery of axe, does not inspire confidence. 22. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, no blood was detected on the axe. True that the relevant portion of the C.A. Report appears to be tom, but then when C.A. report is read totally, it clearly depicts that no blood stains were detected on the Article 29 - Axe, because this article does not find its number in the list of exhibits on which blood was detected. Thus this evidence is also not helpful to the prosecution so as to invite any conviction for accused no.1 Pandhari also. 23. When such is the evidence, there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal of the lower court impugned in this appeal, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.