JUDGMENT S.R.Dongaonkar, J. 1. The appellant, State of Maharashtra, is taking exception to the judgment of acquittal of the respondents in Sessions Case No. 72/1991 decided by Sessions Judge Buldana, on 18.1.1995 by which he acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 337, 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 147, 148, 302, 452, 337, 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The respondents were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences on the allegations that deceased Sukhdeo Maroti Ingle and deceased Jaipalsing Ukhardasing Rajput were the residents of village Nimbari. Sukhdeo's son Prithwikant had affair with the daughter of Jaipalsingh. About three months prior to the incident in question, the said son of deceased Sukhdeo had eloped with Anita, daughter of Jaipalsing and since then the relations between the members of family of deceased Jaipalsing and that of deceased Sukhdeo became strained. Deceased Jaipalsing and his family members had taken this incident very seriously and insulting; as deceased Sukhdeo belonged to Scheduled Caste. It is alleged that deceased Jaipalsing and members of his family (respondents) were threatening deceased Sukhdeo saying that they would also kidnap his daughter in revenge. Being frightened, deceased Sukhdeo had left the village Nimbari alongwith his family members and started living at Shegaon with his elder son Chandraprakash, who was incidently in police department. On 15.1.1991, Sukhdeo, his daughter Vijaya and his wife Indubai left Shegaon for going to Malkapur to collect pension amount. Deceased Sukhdeo was the retired police constable. On the way, Vijaya (P.W. 4) got down at Chandur Biswa, her uncle's village. Deceased Sukhdeo and Indubai (P.W. 7) started proceeding ahead. After collecting pension amount, they returned to Chandur Biswa and all of them stayed there. On the next day, deceased Sukhdeo, P.W. 7 Indubai and P.W. 4 Vijaya and Vijaya's uncle's two daughter Jyoti and Sunita started going to village Nimbari. They were proceeding towards their house. At that time they were seen by Chandu, son of Jaipalsingh. He was sitting by the side of the road answering nature's call. It is alleged that this Chandu on seeing these persons, ran towards his house. He also abused them. Deceased Sukhdeo, P.W. 7 Indubai and two daughters of Vijaya's uncle reached their house. At that time they were seen by Chandu, son of Jaipalsingh. He was sitting by the side of the road answering nature's call. It is alleged that this Chandu on seeing these persons, ran towards his house. He also abused them. Deceased Sukhdeo, P.W. 7 Indubai and two daughters of Vijaya's uncle reached their house. At that time deceased Jaipalsing, his wife Suman (Respondent no.1), his daughters Sunita (Respondent no.2), Mayabai (Respondent no.5), Padma, his sons Harpalsing (Respondent no.3), Chandu and his brother Gopalsingh ( Respondent no.4) came there. It is alleged that deceased Jaipalsing, Dhannu, Chandu and Gopalsing were armed with sticks. Respondent no. 3 Harpalsing was possessing an axe. All of them insulted deceased Sukhdeo and his family members saying that they are defecating in a plate in which they dine. Thereafter P.W.7 Indubai warned them saying that they should have taken care of their daughter. Hearing this, deceased Jaipalsing delivered a blow of stick on her head. She sustained bleeding injury. Again all the respondents threatened them. All the respondents and other juvenile accused pushed the members of the family of Sukhdeo. Deceased Sukhdeo requested all the respondents and juvenile accused not to beat them. He asked P.W. 7 Indubai to go to police station to give information about the incident, so P.W. 7 Indubai left the place for going to police station. It is alleged that thereafter respondent no. 1 Suman pushed deceased Sukhdeo who was standing on the steps of the door. Respondent no. 3 Harpalsing gave blow with an axe on the head of deceased Sukhdeo. On receiving blow with an axe, deceased Sukhdeo fell on the ground. Thereupon, Respondent no. 4 Gopalsing gave beating to Sukhdeo with stick, so also other accused pelted stones. It is alleged that respondents Harpalsing, Gopalsingh and Suman dragged deceased Sukhdeo towards the house of deceased Jaipalsing. At that time one tractor loaded with sand came to pass from that place. Number of villagers had gathered there. They advised P.W. 4 Vijaya to leave the place saying that otherwise (Deceased) Jaipalsing, the respondents and other accused would kill them. Thereafter P.W. 4 Vijaya boarded in tractor along with the daughters of her uncle and started proceeding towards Malkapur. On the way, her mother Indubai was noticed. She also joined them for police station. They advised P.W. 4 Vijaya to leave the place saying that otherwise (Deceased) Jaipalsing, the respondents and other accused would kill them. Thereafter P.W. 4 Vijaya boarded in tractor along with the daughters of her uncle and started proceeding towards Malkapur. On the way, her mother Indubai was noticed. She also joined them for police station. On going to Police Station, they gave information to the police that Rajputs' (respondents) were beating Sukhdeo. At that time P.W.4 Vijaya was sent back with police staff to village Nimbari and P.W.7 Indubai was sent for medical examination. When Police staff and P.W.4 Vijaya came to the spot of incident, they noticed dead body of Sukhdeo with several injuries in front of the office of Gram Panchayat. Thereafter P.W.4 Vijaya was brought to police station Malkapur, she lodged report there. 3. On the basis of that report, crime was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigation was conducted. During investigation, inquest panchanama was prepared in presence of P.W.2 Vishnu Ganpat Sapkal (Exh.55), so also spot panchanama as per Exh.53. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Accordingly P.W.8 Dr. Annapurna Subramanyam conducted autopsy on the dead body. The report of post mortem examination is at Exh. 77. According to her, the deceased had died due to injuries mentioned in P.M. note. Particularly Injury Nos. 3, 4 & 6 individually and collectively were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. She has mentioned the cause of death as multiple grievous injuries over the head and neck causing fracture skull bones and injury to brain matter and injury to tracheal rings leading to severe haemorrhage and sudden cardiac respiratory arrest. 4. During investigation, respondents were arrested. The search of the house of Respondent no. 4 was taken and axe was seized, so also from Respondent no. 4 Gopal, shirt & dhoti were seized. Some articles were also seized from the spot. During investigation the map of the spot was also prepared (Exh. 67). The main investigation was conducted by P.W. 10 P.S.I Baldev Rathod. He sent the seized articles to Chemical Analyzer and received C.A's report. After due investigation, the respondents including Jaipalsing came to be charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences and some juvenile accused were sent to Juvenile Court. 5. 67). The main investigation was conducted by P.W. 10 P.S.I Baldev Rathod. He sent the seized articles to Chemical Analyzer and received C.A's report. After due investigation, the respondents including Jaipalsing came to be charge sheeted for the aforesaid offences and some juvenile accused were sent to Juvenile Court. 5. On committal of the case, learned Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Case No. 72/1991 framed charge for the aforesaid offences against the respondents as deceased Jaipalsingh had expired by that time. The respondents pleaded not guilty of the same. Their defence is that of total denial. 6. In order to establish the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution examined in all 10 witnesses. As stated above, P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai who are daughter and wife of the deceased Sukhdeo respectively have been examined as eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W. 1 Raju Sawle; P.W. 2 Vishnu Sapkal and P.W. 3 Devidas Raipure are the panch witnesses to various panchanamas. P.W. 5 P.S.I. Ramdas Patil had received the report of P.W. 4 Vijaya (Exh.62), upon which offence was registered as per Exh.65. P.W. 6 Revenue Inspector Wanan Wankhede has drawn the map of spot as per Exh. 67. P.W. 8 Dr. Annapurna Subramanyam had conducted the autopsy. The relevant P.M. report is Exh.77. She had also examined P.W.7 Indubai, whose certificate of medical examination is at Exh.78. She has also examined the respondents. P.W. 9 P.S.I. Shivankar had gone to the spot of incident and seen the dead body of deceased Sukhdeo. P.W.10 P.S.I. Rathod is the Investigating Officer. With this evidence on record, the prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents. 7. Respondents did not adduce any evidence in their defence. 8. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge has opined that the evidence of P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai cannot be relied upon for the improvements which are crept in their evidence. He has concluded that there was no possibility of these witnesses of having seen the incident. It is further held by the learned trial Judge that though many witnesses could have been present at the time of incident, they have not been examined and only interested & relations have been examined, and so the prosecution case is unreliable, more so because these witnesses have tried to implicate even the juvenile members of the family of deceased Jaipalsing. Having found that there are material improvements, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution case is quite unreliable and it was unsafe to base conviction on such evidence. It is also noticed by him that the witnesses who were claimed to be the eye-witnesses in F.I.R. (Exh. 62) i.e. Vikram Rajput, Narayan Chambhar, Punjaji Chambhar, (Indubai Bouddha) and Darabai Ingle were not examined and the prosecution did not offer any reasonable explanation for not examining these witnesses and therefore, the learned trial Judge held that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubts. He also found that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is also not made out against the respondents and therefore, he acquitted the respondents. 9. Learned A.P.P. Shri Khubalkar for the appellant submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses i.e. P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai, who are close relations of the deceased, though they are related to the deceased, they are trustworthy. They have seen the respondents attacking the said Indubai as well as the deceased Sukhdev and they had to go to police station and when P.W. 4 Vijaya returned to the spot along with police officials, Sukhdeo was found dead with several injuries on his person. Therefore, it is submitted by him that the evidence on record clearly leads to the guilt of the respondents. It is further submitted by him that the respondents along with deceased Jaipalsing had common object to attack Indubai as well as deceased Sukhdeo and their unlawful assembly was armed with deadly weapon like an axe and therefore, all the respondents can be held guilty of all the offences alleged. He has taken us through the impugned judgment to contend that the FIR was discussing the story prior to the death of the deceased Sulhdeo and it corroborated the testimony of P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai. It was not at all expected of P.W.7 Indubai to lodge report in details inasmuch as she had herself suffered injury on her head and at the relevant time the said injury needed immediate medical aid, though later on it was found to be not so serious. It was not at all expected of P.W.7 Indubai to lodge report in details inasmuch as she had herself suffered injury on her head and at the relevant time the said injury needed immediate medical aid, though later on it was found to be not so serious. According to him, the learned trial Judge has drawn many unwarranted inferences like the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai are material though they are not the eye witnesses to the actual incident of fatal assault. According to him, learned trial Judge has wrongly drawn adverse inference for the non examination of alleged eye witness though their names were stated in the FIR (Exh. 62) i.e. Vikram Rajput, Narayan Chambhar, Punjaji Chambhar and Darabai Ingle. In fact, in view of their statements recorded by the I.O., they had not seen the actual incident and therefore, non-examination of these witnesses cannot lead to the adverse inference against the prosecution. As such, he has submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Judge is perverse to the record and therefore, it calls for an interference for conviction of the respondents for the aforesaid offences. He has relied on the observations of the Apex Court in (2003) 5 SCC 291 [ Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration)] to contend that the testimony of the police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of other witnesses so as to contend that the lapses which have been pointed out in the evidence of police personnel need not be given much weight. Therefore, he submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the respondents be convicted. 10. As against this, Mr. Dhavas, learned advocate for the respondents, has submitted that the family of deceased Jaipalsing and deceased Sukhdeo had friendly relations. Their relations became strained because daughter of Jaipalsing had eloped with the son of deceased Sukhdeo. He has contended that the F.I.R. contained many false allegations to involve even the innocent family members of deceased Jaipalsing. According to him, the seizures of the incriminating articles are not properly proved nor they are linked with the alleged incident. According to him, P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai did not see the incident in entirety. He has contended that the F.I.R. contained many false allegations to involve even the innocent family members of deceased Jaipalsing. According to him, the seizures of the incriminating articles are not properly proved nor they are linked with the alleged incident. According to him, P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai did not see the incident in entirety. They had seen the incident, if at all seen, only beginning of the same and therefore, their evidence cannot lead to the guilt of the respondents for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. as it cannot be said who dealt fatal blow. It is further submitted by him that the evidence of P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai is riddled with so many material contradictions that their evidence becomes untrustworthy for basing the conviction. He has also submitted that the axe which was seized was not found to be blood stained. He submitted that the material witness i.e. driver of the tractor was not examined, besides Narayan Chambhar and other witnesses cited to be the eye witnesses in F.I.R. are also not examined. There could have been many other independent witnesses to the incident but they are not examined. There was delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the story narrated in the F.I.R. by P.W.4 Vijaya is not deposed by the alleged eye witnesses P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai. He has also contended that there are so many inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence regarding seizure of the stick, seizure of allegedly blood stained clothes of Jaipalsing and other Respondents. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1976 SC 83 [Labh Singh & ors vs. State of Punjab] to contend that this being an appeal against acquittal, when two views are possible, the view adopted by the learned trial Judge to acquit the respondents should not be interfered. He has further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in AIR 1973 SC 2695 [ Dargahi and others vs. The State of U.P.] to contend that when there is an admitted enmity between the deceased Sukhdeo's family and the family of deceased Jaipalsing, the evidence has to be scrutinized closely & carefully and if that evidence withstand the close scrutiny then only it can be acted upon in spite of their inimical terms. He has also taken us through the observations of the Apex Court in AIR 2006 SC 2531 [ Bunnilal Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar] to contend that the facts of that case are similar to this one, as all of the respondents including the juveniles cannot be said to have common object to commit the alleged offence. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, it is well settled that under Section 149 of I.P.C. the liability of other members for the offence committed during the continuance of occurrence rest upon the fact whether the other persons knew before the offence is actually committed that it was likely to be committed in prosecution of common object. He has submitted that the juveniles and the ladies (respondents) cannot be said to have common object to murder deceased Sukhdeo. Therefore, as there was possibility of having deceased Jaipalsing committed the offence alleged, the present respondents would be entitled for benefit of doubt and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court cannot be interfered with; in this appeal against acquittal. 11. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to see the observations of the Apex Court in 2007 AIR SCW 1850, [Chandrappa & ors. v. State of Karnataka.] wherein it has been held that-- (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on question of fact and of laws; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. It has been further held that, Even though in an appeal against acquittal, powers of appellate Court are as wide as that of the trial Court and it can review, reappreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the instant case, the view taken by the trial Court for acquitting the accused and extending benefit of doubt was possible and plausible. On the basis of evidence, therefore, at the most, it can be said that the other view was equally possible. But it is well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate Court. Therefore, it is necessary to find out as to whether the view taken by the learned trial Judge is perverse to the record and whether his conclusion that evidence of the witnesses P.W.4 Vijaya and P.W.7 Indubai is not trustworthy for basing conviction is correct. 12. It goes without saying that considering the injuries found on the person of deceased Sukhdeo, which are recorded in P.M. report Ex.77 by P.W.8 Dr. Annapurna Subramanyam that the deceased had died due to injuries mentioned in the P.M. notes, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The cause of death as recorded by P.W.8 Dr. Annapurna is multiple grivious injuries over the head and neck causing fracture skull bones and injury to brain matter and injury to tracheal rings leading to severe haemorrhage and sudden cardiac respiratory arrest. The cause of death as recorded by P.W.8 Dr. Annapurna is multiple grivious injuries over the head and neck causing fracture skull bones and injury to brain matter and injury to tracheal rings leading to severe haemorrhage and sudden cardiac respiratory arrest. The manner in which the dead body was found before the Gram Panchayat Office would clearly lead to the conclusion that he had met with homicidal death. The question is whether all these respondents or any of them can be held to be responsible for his death i.e. causing fatal injuries to him, beyond reasonable doubts. 13. Learned A.P.P. for the appellant has criticized the judgment of the learned trial Judge saying that the learned trial Judge from the very beginning was of the opinion that the respondents had not committed any offence and therefore, he observed in para 9 of the judgment that the dead body was found on road in front of the office of Gram Panchayat in pool of blood which positively says that Sukhdeo might have been killed by someone else. We are unable to agree with this contention. It clearly appears to be a slip of typing that the word else is mentioned in the judgment. The further observations of the learned trial Judge clearly seems to refer killing of Sukhdeo by somebody, may be respondents or some other persons. Therefore, this submission cannot be accepted. 14. It is a matter of record that Jaipalsingh was reported to be dead vide pursis dated 26/10/1994, Exh. 8, in the trial Court's record. However, the order of abatement does not seem to have been passed on the charge sheet, which was must, but the fact remains that it was the allegation against deceased Jaipalsingh that he was inimical with deceased Sukhdeo, as his daughter Anita had eloped with Pritwikant, son of deceased Sukhdeo and therefore, he had lodged report against the said Balu @ Pritwikant on 9.10.1990 for the offence under Section 363 and 366 of the I.P.C. Therefore, there were clear inimical terms between the family of deceased Sukhdeo and deceased Jaipalsing. Although this may tend the Respondents & deceased Jaipalsing to commit the offence, it may also make the victims to falsely implicate them. 15. At this stage, it is necessary to see the F.I.R. Exh. 62. Although this may tend the Respondents & deceased Jaipalsing to commit the offence, it may also make the victims to falsely implicate them. 15. At this stage, it is necessary to see the F.I.R. Exh. 62. It shows that at the relevant time, when the deceased Sukhdeo, her mother Indubai and her maternal uncle's daughters Sunita and Jyoti went to Nimbari at about 10.24 to 11.00 a.m., and when they opened the door of their house, they saw Padma, daughter of deceased Jaipalsing standing on the platform of Gram Panchayat. She uttered abuses RAND ALI, BHADYA ALA and thereafter all the respondents and other juvenile offenders came there. The respondent Harpalsing had an axe in his hand and he uttered, SALO JIS THALIME KHAYE, USIME CHED KARE, HAMARE LADKIKO BHAGAKE HAMARI NAK KATE and started abusing. Then her mother Indubai told that they should have taken care of his daughter, so Jaipalsing hit her mother by stick. Thereafter also some incident of scuffle took place and they started beating her father deceased Sukhdeo. Thereafter her mother went to the house of Narayan Chambhar to bring keys of the house and respondents started beating her father. Thereafter her mother went towards diversion for going to police station and the respondents dragged deceased Sukhdeo towards Gram Panchayat Office. Thereafter, she, her maternal uncle's daughters Sunita and Jyoti went by tractor which was carrying sand towards the police station, meanwhile on way Indubai met her, so she was also taken in the said tractor and they all went to police station. Thereafter she returned with police and noticed deceased Sukhdeo lying dead in front of Gram Panchayat Office. She has specifically mentioned that this incident was witnessed by so many persons and the persons of her acquaintance in the persons who had gathered were Vikram Rajput, Narayan Chambhar, Punjaji Chambhar, Indubai Bouddha (P.W.7 Indubai) and one Darabai Ingle. 16. It goes without saying that when Indubai had gone to bring the keys to the house of Narayan Chambhar, Narayan Chambhar or his family members must have been present at the time of incident. It is evident from the prosecution evidence that these witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. 17. Learned A.P.P. for the appellant has tried to submit that all these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution inasmuch as they did not make any statement implicating the respondents before the police. It is evident from the prosecution evidence that these witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. 17. Learned A.P.P. for the appellant has tried to submit that all these witnesses were not examined by the prosecution inasmuch as they did not make any statement implicating the respondents before the police. But all the same, as they were cited as witnesses to the incident in the F.I.R. itself, the prosecution should have examined them. Prosecution's satisfaction in examining only close relatives is beyond comprehension. 18. The circumstances of the case also make it clear that there must be some other witnesses to the incident who could have been examined by the prosecution, but they were not examined and therefore, it is difficult to say that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge that for want of evidence of these witnesses, the prosecution case suffers from credibility, is incorrect. 19. This takes us to consider the other aspects of the case. The prosecution has also failed to examine the tractor driver. There is no reason as to why he was not examined. It is necessary to bear in mind that he would have been the first person to know independently as to what incident had taken place. It is possible that there must have been some other persons in the tractor as it was carrying sand. But the fact that the tractor driver is not examined to prove as to why these witnesses were going to police station, incurs doubt. 20. At this stage it is necessary to refer to the evidence of I.O, P.W.10 P.I Rathod. He has stated that on 16.1.1991 he was working as P.S.I. at Malkapur and at about 10.30 a.m. he saw Indubai and Vijaya running towards the police station. He saw them on the way and he asked them as to why they are running. They told him that at village Nimbari she herself, her daughter and her husband were beaten by Jaipalsing Harpalsing, Sumanbai and their daughters. The incident of beating had taken place at village Nimbari. Then he sent police officials to that village which is about 7-8 Kms. away and he went to that village following them by jeep along with Vijaya and thereafter the dead body of deceased Sukhdeo was noticed near the Gram Panchayat office. 21. The incident of beating had taken place at village Nimbari. Then he sent police officials to that village which is about 7-8 Kms. away and he went to that village following them by jeep along with Vijaya and thereafter the dead body of deceased Sukhdeo was noticed near the Gram Panchayat office. 21. Therefore, the possibility of some persons being present in Gram Panchayat Office at the relevant time cannot be over ruled. Perusal of the map (Exh. 67) of the spot drawn by the Revenue Inspector would show that there was clear possibility of other independent witnesses being present at the relevant time, because the spot of incident appears to be in front of some houses including that of one Shripal Bapuna. As stated above, none of them is examined. 22. It is difficult to appreciate as to why the offence was not immediately registered on receiving such information by P.I. Rathod. True that P.W.7 Indubai was injured and she was required to be sent for medical examination and in fact she was sent so, but it appears that her injuries as noticed by P.W.8 Dr. Annapurna appear to be not so serious though they were on head. She was examined at 6.20 p.m. on that day. There is no explanation as to why there was such delay. All the same, there was no difficulty in getting the details of the incident from her at the relevant time. It is not the case of the prosecution that she was even unable to speak for any reason. In such circumstances, the report lodged by P.W. 4 Vijaya at about 12.30, which appears to have been lodged after noticing the dead body of Sukhdeo, invites criticism and for obvious reasons. 23. Here is the case where apart from the respondents, several juveniles i.e. members of the family of deceased Jaipalsing have been arrayed as an accused, whose trial was separated. Therefore, there is clear possibility of false implication of some of the accused. 24. Here is the case where the evidence of P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai tend to support the prosecution as regards starting of the incident. There is no evidence as regards the actual fatal assault on the deceased Sukhdeo. These witnesses cannot be said to be the witnesses of actual assault on deceased Sukhdeo, which caused him fatal injuries and consequently his death. 25. There is no evidence as regards the actual fatal assault on the deceased Sukhdeo. These witnesses cannot be said to be the witnesses of actual assault on deceased Sukhdeo, which caused him fatal injuries and consequently his death. 25. We are aware that the evidence of P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai is that of close relations of the deceased and they may not spare the real culprit at the cost of false implication of the respondents, but all the same it does appear in this case that there is false implication of even juvenile members of the family of deceased Jaipalsing and it is impossible to hold that they had common object to kill the said Sukhdeo. 26. It would be seen from the evidence of P.W. 10 P.I. Rathod that the evidence of P.W. 7 Indubai is improved version because she has not stated material things in her statement. Further there appears to be some what divergent story in the evidence of P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai about the beginning of the incident and presence of Chandu and Padma on the spot. Therefore, their evidence cannot be explicitly relied upon for basing the conviction as regards murder of deceased Sukhdeo inasmuch as they had not seen the incident and the possible independent witnesses are not examined, more so because there are some respondents who could have caused fatal assault. Here is the case where deceased Jaipalsing was also alleged & perhaps main assailant and there is nothing on record to clearly suggest that he could not have caused the fatal assault on the deceased Sukhdeo and some of the respondents had in fact caused the same. The learned trial Judge seems to have taken reasonable view of the matter in this behalf. 27. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence of the panch witnesses as not supporting the prosecution case. He has rightly pointed out that the respondents would not have been kept incriminating articles like sticks, blood stained clothes etc. in the manner in the places from where they are alleged to have been seized. It is difficult to disagree with him. It is, therefore, difficult to find corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai as regards actual fatal assault on deceased Sukhdeo, for all or any of the respondents. 28. in the manner in the places from where they are alleged to have been seized. It is difficult to disagree with him. It is, therefore, difficult to find corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai as regards actual fatal assault on deceased Sukhdeo, for all or any of the respondents. 28. It would be seen that the F.I.R. shows that the offence was committed or at least started at about 10.45 to 11 a.m. However, the evidence of P.W. 10 P.I. Rathod shows that the witnesses P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai came to police station at about 10.30 a.m. The distance between the spot of incident and the police station Malkapur is about 7-8 kms. and the witness has first halted the tractor and boarded in the same and thereafter they went to the police station. Therefore, the discrepancy crept in the mention of the time is quite significant. Further, the report seems to have been lodged at about 12 noon, and therefore, when there was no first version of P.W. 7 Indubai, in report, and as according to the prosecution, she had told that only Rajputs had started assaulting them without naming the relevant persons, the case against these respondents would be only of suspicion. 29. We are aware of the fact that the maxim 'falsus uno in falsus omnibus' is not applicable in India. Further, the related witnesses may not, in normal circumstances, spare the real culprits to implicate falsely the innocents. But all the same, when in this case, one of the assailants & perhaps main Jaipalsing is dead, and as there is possibility of actual assault being done by him on Indubai and deceased Sukhdeo, and when there are discrepancies in the evidence of eye-witnesses and the F.I.R. as regards the starting of incident, and because of the fact that some juvenile persons in the family of deceased Jaipalsing have also been made accused, the evidence of P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai cannot be relied upon explicitly for basing the conviction, more so because the other possible eye witnesses are not examined by the prosecution, even the persons stated to be an eye-witnesses in F.I.R. are not examined. 30. 30. We have already pointed out above that when two views are possible and one is taken by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused, the same cannot be interfered with in view of the observations of the Apex Court in 2007 AIR SCW 1850, [Chandrappa & ors. v. State of Karnataka.] (supra). Here is the case where learned trial Judge, though some of the reasons cannot be concurred by us, has given cogent and convincing reasons to find that the evidence of P.W. 4 Vijaya and P.W. 7 Indubai is not trustworthy for basing conviction of the present respondents, it is not possible to interfere with the same. 31. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that even offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is also not made out by the F.I.R in clear terms, muchless by the evidence of these alleged eye-witnesses. In sequel, we find that the view taken by the learned trial Judge to acquit the respondents cannot be said to be perverse to the record, muchless calling for interference by this Court in the jurisdiction of appeal against acquittal as defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.