JUDGMENT 1. - The acquittal of the respondents original accused No.1 to 4 Munshi Singh, Surjeet Singh alias Leela Singh, Mewa Singh, Deva Singh alias Baldev Singh (A-1 to A-4) of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar vide judgment and order dated 18.01.1984 in Sessions Case No. 53 of 1983 is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal which is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code, for short) by the appellant State of Rajasthan. 2. The facts emerging from the record of the case and more particularly as disclosed in the FIR and unfolded during the trial are as under: 2.1 On 10.06.1983, PW1 Hardeep Singh s/o Mukand Singh, by caste Jat Sikh, gave an oral report at Police Station, Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, wherein he inter-alia stated that at about 11-12 Noon, when he was in the shop on cotton carding machine and his father Mukand Singh was standing outside shop in front of the machine, at that time Surjeet Singh armed with Sela, Mewa Singh & Deva Singh with Gandasi, Munshi Singh having Sela, Chidi Singh (brother-in-law of Surjeet) and Phula Singh with Sela, came there and caused injuries to his father Mukand Singh by Selas and Gandasis with the intention to kill him and when they made hue and cry, his brother Gurdeep Singh, Lal Singh and Patwari Ram came on spot. Surjeet Singh inflicted injury with Sela to his brother Gurdeep Singh with intention to kill him and then all these persons left the place thinking that his father had expired. Thereafter, Lal Singh and Patwari Ram taken his father and brother to hospital in tractor but on the way his father died on account of the injuries received by him and his brother was got admitted in the hospital. 2.2 The aforesaid complaint was registered vide FIR No.125 of 1983 at Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar against six persons named therein. The motive for the incident was that deceased Mukand Singh had two sons, one Hardeep Singh (PW1) and another Gurdeep Singh alias Gurdev Singh (PW2). The second son i.e. Gurdeep Singh had gone in adoption to Hakim Singh, the brother of deceased Mukand Singh. The motive for the incident was that deceased Mukand Singh had two sons, one Hardeep Singh (PW1) and another Gurdeep Singh alias Gurdev Singh (PW2). The second son i.e. Gurdeep Singh had gone in adoption to Hakim Singh, the brother of deceased Mukand Singh. Munshi Singh had forcibly occupied the agricultural land belonging to said Hakim Singh and also managed to get the mutation done in his name due to which, there had been litigation between Gurdeep Singh and Munshi Singh. On account of this, Munshi Singh and his three sons, namely, accused Mewa Singh, Leela Singh and Deva Singh were annoyed with him while deceased Mukand Singh deceased used to help Gurdeep Singh. 2.3 On registering the FIR, investigation was put into motion and during the course of investigation, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar ordered the Judicial Magistrate to record dying declaration of injured Gurdeep Singh. Thereafter, investigation was taken over by the Incharge Police Station from ASI, who inspected the place of occurrence at the instance Hardeep Singh and prepared Ex.P/1 & P/2. He found there blood and also found one pair of Juti, glass of a watch, ring and an axe. All these articles were taken into possession and sealed. He also took in possession and sealed the sample soil and prepared Ex.P/3. Thereafter, he returned to hospital and after inspecting the dead body of Mukand Singh, he prepared Inquest Report Ex.P/4 and Panchayatnama Ex.P/14 and thereafter sent the dead body of Mukund Singh for postmortem examination. 2.4 PW3 Dr. Rajendra Kumar Gupta conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mukand Singh and prepared report which is on record as Ex.P/12. He also examined the injuries on the body of Gurdeep Singh and prepared Injury Certificate Ex.P/11. 2.5 On completion of investigation, as sufficient incriminating evidence was found only against four accused persons, chargesheet was filed against four accused persons in the Court of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 302, 307/34 and 120-B IPC. 2.6 As the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions at Sri Ganganagar (for short, trial Court, hereinafter). 2.6 As the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions at Sri Ganganagar (for short, trial Court, hereinafter). 2.7 The trial Court, framed charge against the accused Munshi Singh and Leela Singh for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC, in alternate 302/34, 307, 326/34, and against Devi Singh and Mewa Singh under Sections 302/34, 307, 326/34, which was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried, therefore, they were put to trial. 2.8 To prove the culpability of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses including two eye witnesses i.e. PW1 Hardeep Singh and PW2 Gurdeep Singh and relied upon their oral testimony. To prove the charge leveled against accused persons, the prosecution also produced in all 33 documents and relied upon the contents of the same. 2.9 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the trial Court recorded further statements of the accused as required under Section 313 of the Code wherein the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that a false case has been filed against them and put up the case of self defence. It is stated that Munshi Singh, accused No.1 caused injuries to deceased Mukund Singh in his private defence as the deceased was aggressor. Accused No.1 in his further statement has stated that at the time of incident, he was going to take care of his land and was having with him Sela and while he was passing in front of the flour mill of Mukand Singh, Mukand Singh came from behind and caught hold of him and in that process, his wrist watch's glass, ring and hand of seconds fell there. Mukund Singh brought an axe from nearby flour mill and ran towards him to kill him so he frightened ran from there but Mukund Singh reached near to him and was about 15 pawands and blown axe on him and in defence he inflicted injuries to him. On giving axe blow by Mukund Singh, his Sela broke and the groove of Sela fell down. On giving axe blow by Mukund Singh, his Sela broke and the groove of Sela fell down. He gave blows by the stick of Sela to Mukund Singh in his defence and by then Gurdeep Singh came there, who tried to snatch the stick of Sela from him and caught hold of it so he gave blow of the groove on Gurdeep Singh. During this, the axe of Mukand Singh fell on the spot and he himself fell down while going towards the side of his house. Surjeet Singh, Deva Singh and Mewa Singh were not there. Hardeep Singh was also not there. He went to police station in the night on same day to lodge report of the incident but the report was not written and he was forced to sit there. He admitted the glass and ring being of his watch, which he submitted the day before. According to him, the land of Hakam Singh was entered in his name and that was the cause for rivalry. He stated that the groove of his Sela was blunt and he was innocent. The accused persons neither led any evidence nor examined any witness to support their defence. 2.10 On appreciation of the evidence adduced, the trial Court held that the deceased died a homicidal death, however, the prosecution has failed to prove charge leveled against accused as independent two eye witnesses i.e. Lal Singh and Pawari Ram have not been produced before the trial Court. For not accepting the evidence of the prosecution, the trial Court has recorded following reasons: (i) Independent eye witnesses i.e. Lal Singh and Patwari Ram were not produced by the prosecution. (ii) Motive is not proved (iii) Eye witnesses are not reliable as - (a) they have improved their version from stage to stage and also changed the version given in FIR (b) they did not come with true story (c) their conduct was unnatural (iv) FIR was post investigation (a) FIR lodged at 12:30 PM (b) FIR reached to the Magistrate at 8:45 PM whereas distance is only of one furlong (c) Requisition submitted to Magistrate does not bear FIR Number which was received at 2 PM and FIR is said to be lodged at 12:30 PM. (v) Defence story is more probable in the facts and circumstances of the case (a) Kulhari seized from spot by police (b) Two Gandasis recovered by Investigating Officer not stained with blood (c) Sela recovered from Surjeet Singh was not blood stained (d) Blood found only on the Sela of Munshi Singh (e) Defence Story that Munshi Singh caused injuries in his private defence. On the basis of aforesaid finding, the trial Court held that prosecution has failed to establish the complicity of the accused for commission of the offence of murder of Mukund Singh and causing injuries to Gurdeep Singh PW2, resultantly he acquitted all the accused of the offences with which they were charged, giving rise to the instant appeal at the instance of appellant the State of Rajasthan. 3. Mr. K. R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant State of Rajasthan, in support of the appeal has raised the following contentions: I. The finding given by the trial Court for nonproduction of the two witnesses Lal Singh and Patwari Ram is perverse and contrary to law. He has also emphasised that it is not necessary that the prosecution should produce the evidence of all the eye witnesses. II. In the instant case, prosecution has examined two eye witnesses, who are sons of the deceased and it is settled law that the evidence of near and dear relatives cannot be discarded because of relation, though it is true that their evidence is required to be scrutinised minutely but in the instant case the testimony of the two eye witnesses who are near and dear of the deceased is of sterling worth and there is no doubt about their credibility. III. The trial Court has not accepted the evidence of PW1 Hardeep Singh and PW2 Gurdeep Singh and the reason for not believing their evidence is neither cogent nor convincing. IV. It is emphasised by him that the trial Court has committed an error while holding that the possibility of having attacked Munshi Singh with an axe cannot be ruled out. V. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is based on surmises and conjectures. It is also submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the three accused Mewa Singh, Leela Singh and Deva Singh were not present at the scene of occurrence. VI. V. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is based on surmises and conjectures. It is also submitted that the trial Court has committed error in holding that the three accused Mewa Singh, Leela Singh and Deva Singh were not present at the scene of occurrence. VI. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court has wrongly held that the blows by Munshi Singh and other accused on the body of deceased and Gurdeep Singh were given in self defence. 4. On the aforesaid premise, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has fully proved the case, therefore, the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused, deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing this appeal and thereby convicting the accused of the offence with which they were charged. He, therefore, urged to allow this Appeal. 5. Per contra, Mr. HSS Kharlia, learned counsel for respondents contended that prosecution has deliberately not produced the two independent witnesses i.e. Lal Singh and Patwari Ram and chosen to produce only two eye witnesses PW1 Hardeep Singh and PW2 Gurdeep Singh who are sons of deceased Mukand Singh, whose evidence is bristle with lot of contradictions and they have improved their versions at every stage and they have also improved their versions with regard to carrying what weapon by which accused. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that accused No.1 in his further statement put up a case of self defence that as the deceased was having a weapon, which he tried to blow on him, accused No.1 who was having Sela with him, gave blows of the stick of Sela and as a result of that deceased died. It is also highlighted that the axe which was brought by the deceased and the two gandasis recovered by the Investigating Officer were not stained with blood and the Sela recovered from Surjeet Singh was also not blood stained. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel is that accused No.1 had exercised the right of private defence and in the course of exercise of private defence Mukund Singh died. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel is that accused No.1 had exercised the right of private defence and in the course of exercise of private defence Mukund Singh died. He submitted that the trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter, and after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, came to the just and correct conclusion of acquitting the accused of the with which they were charged, and therefore, same does not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 378 of the Code. Lastly, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that this is an acquittal appeal wherein the High Court should attach greater weight to the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court who had the occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses. He has also emphasised that it is also a cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal even other view is possible then also appellate Court cannot substitute it's view by reversing the acquittal appeal into conviction unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the merit on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 6. On the aforesaid premises, he submitted that the appeal lacks merit, and it deserves to be dismissed. He, therefore, urged to dismiss the Appeal. 7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by Mr. K.R. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant State of Rajasthan and Mr. HSS Kharlia, learned counsel for respondent accused, at length and in great detail. This Court has also perused the impugned judgment and order and the set of evidence and the paper book comprising of testimonial collections. This Court has undertaken complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and entire evidence on record which is read and re-read by us with reference to broad and reasonable probability of the case. 8. Before reappreciating the evidence on record, it may be noted that accused No.1 Munshi Singh during the pendency of appeal expired on 27.11.1992, therefore, the appeal filed against him stands abated vide order 16.12.1997 passed by this Court and we have now to examine the merits of the appeal filed by the State against remaining three accused. 9. The fact that the deceased died a homicidal death, is not in dispute. 9. The fact that the deceased died a homicidal death, is not in dispute. In this connection, the prosecution has relied upon the oral testimony of PW3 Dr. Rajendra Kumar, who has also examined injured Gurdeep Singh. PW3 Rajendra Kumar has prepared the autopsy report which is on record as Ex.P/12. A perusal of his oral testimony as well as Postmortem Report shows that the deceased received 12 injuries and died because of shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to left lung, spleen and large intestine. Therefore, it has to be held that the deceased died a homicidal death. 10. Having held that the deceased died a homicidal death, the next question that falls for determination of this Court is, as to whether the accused are the authors of the injuries caused to the deceased. 11. According to prosecution, all four accused came at the place of occurrence armed with weapons and caused grievous injuries to deceased Mukand Singh with Sela and Gandasi. In this case the prosecution has produced Hardeep Singh and Gurdeep Singh both as eye witnesses. We have to see how far the story given by these witnesses is reliable. First of all, we consider the evidence of PW1 Hardeep Singh, who has said in his examination in chief that his father was standing under the tree of Kikar and he himself was cotton carding shop when the accused came from the side of their house. Munshi Singh and Surjeet Singh were having Selas and Mewa Singh & Deva Singh were having Gandasi in their hands. All the four attacked Mukand Singh and started causing injuries with Sela and Gandasis. Gandasis were used from both sides i.e. from sharp and blunt side. This witness and Mukand Singh kept saying Na Maro, Na Maro. In the meantime, Gurdeep Singh came from the side of his house and when he tried to intervene, Leela Singh gave Sela blow on his stomach. Gurdeep Singh ran away towards the Kotha of Atma Singh and Mukand Singh fell down near the house of Aatma Singh. The last blow of Sela was given by Surjeet Singh to Mukand Singh due to which he fell down and after falling down of Mukand Singh, Munshi Singh also gave a Sela blow to him. Thereafter, all the four accused persons went away from the place of occurrence. The last blow of Sela was given by Surjeet Singh to Mukand Singh due to which he fell down and after falling down of Mukand Singh, Munshi Singh also gave a Sela blow to him. Thereafter, all the four accused persons went away from the place of occurrence. At that time, his brother Gurdeep Singh came over there and Patwari Ram along with Lal Singh also came on spot. Chidi Singh and Phula Singh were standing at a distance of 20-30 Pawandas. 12. This witness has given the story in the FIR that Mukand Singh was standing in front of machine, at that time Surjeet Singh and Munshi Singh were having Sela, Mewa Singh and Deva Singh were having Gandasis and Chidi Singh and Phula Singh were having Selas. They all caused injuries with Selas and Gandasis with common intention of causing murder of Mukand Singh and when the complainant made hue and cry then Patwari Ram, Lal Singh and Gurdeep Singh came on spot. Surjeet Singh gave a Sela blow in the intercostal region. Then, all the persons went away thinking that Mukand Singh died. Against the above mentioned FIR, Hardeep Singh has admitted that Chidi Singh and Phula Singh were standing only and they did not cause any injury. He has changed his version regarding all the accused persons and also regarding Chidi Singh and Phula Singh causing injuries to his father with Selas. It is relevant to mention here this witness has also mentioned in his police statement Ex.D/1 in portion K to K-1 that apart of these four accused persons Chidi Singh and Phula Singh also attacked on his father. This statement Ex.D/1 has been verified by Vichitra Kumar, SHO PW8. This witness has denied the above mentioned version of FIR and Ex.D/1 and has dared to say that he did not state such version before the police that Chidi Singh and Phula Singh have also taken part in the Marpit. He has further gone to the extent of saying that above mentioned portion of FIR and Ex.D/1 was written by the police itself. 13. It is also relevant to mention here that in FIR Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/1, this witness has not stated that Chidi Singh and Phula Singh were standing at a distance of 20-30 Pawandas. He has further gone to the extent of saying that above mentioned portion of FIR and Ex.D/1 was written by the police itself. 13. It is also relevant to mention here that in FIR Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/1, this witness has not stated that Chidi Singh and Phula Singh were standing at a distance of 20-30 Pawandas. He has also not mentioned that Gandasis were used from both the sides and on confrontation of the above mentioned contradiction this witness has stated in his statement in para No.23 as under:- "I cannot say that as to Mewa Singh caused 1 or 10 injuries by sharp side of Gandasi. I also cannot say about Baldev Singh that he caused how many injuries from sharp side on my father. Baldev Singh is called by the name of Dev Singh. I cannot say that Mewa Singh and Deva Singh caused 1 or 10 injuries to my father from the blunt side." This admission of the witness goes to show that he has not seen the alleged attack on his father. 14. This witness has also dared to say that when his father fell down, then Munshi Singh gave a Sela blow to him and the last Sela blow was given to his father by Surjeet Singh. It is relevant to mention here that there is no mention of this version in Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/1 that the last Sela blow was given to his father by Surjeet Singh and Munshi Singh gave a Sela blow after his fall. This witness has tried to say that he did not come out from the shop due to fear and kept on seeing the incident from shop only. This witness has not mentioned in Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/1 that he did not come out of the shop due to fear. This witness has tried to say that after receiving the injury, Gurdeep Singh ran towards the kotha of Aatma Singh. He has admitted that this version has not been mentioned in Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/1. 15. The counsel for the accused persons has argued that this witness has not mentioned in Ex.P/1 FIR that his father was standing under the tree of Kikar and while receiving injuries he kept moving back. He has admitted that this version has not been mentioned in Ex.P/1 and Ex.D/1. 15. The counsel for the accused persons has argued that this witness has not mentioned in Ex.P/1 FIR that his father was standing under the tree of Kikar and while receiving injuries he kept moving back. It would be relevant to mention here that during the inspection of site by Vichitra Kumar (PW8) he found a glass of wrist watch (Article-2), a ring of wrist watch (Article-3) and one axe (Article-1) from spot. This witness has admitted the presence of these articles but has said that his father had fallen on spot and the police after seizing, handed this watch to him. But when this witness was asked to produce the watch then he said that he cannot produce such watch and does not know that where it has been kept. This witness has dared to say that axe was not present at spot at the time of occurrence. Indirectly, he wants to say that axe was planted by accused persons afterwards. But, had this story been true, then this witness definitely might have told this fact to the investigation officer. He has said in his statement as under: "At the time of my statement, I told to the police that axe was not present at the spot. This fact has not been mentioned in my earlier statement. I have narrated this to the police but the police might have not written." Vichitra Kumar SHO, PW8 does not support this version of this witness and he also does not support the version of witness that there was any wrist watch on the hand of Mukand Singh and also denied the fact of handing over such wrist watch to the witness. 16. The counsel for the accused has challenged the statement of this witness on the basis of conduct of this witness. He has further argued that had this witness been present on spot then this witness would have definitely come out from the shop to save his father and brother. Apart from the conduct of this witness, the inconsistencies in the statement of the witness mentioned above make his presence doubtful. This witness has tried to falsely implicate innocent persons in this case. This fact denotes that this witness is not a reliable witness. Apart from the conduct of this witness, the inconsistencies in the statement of the witness mentioned above make his presence doubtful. This witness has tried to falsely implicate innocent persons in this case. This fact denotes that this witness is not a reliable witness. Had this witness seen the occurrence then he would have definitely told that which accused caused which injury. This witness is silent in this regard in Ex.P/1 and police statement Ex.D/1 and he has come forward for the first time in the Court. In his Court statement, he has assigned specific injury to Munshi Singh and Surjeet Singh. This improved version of the witness is not reliable. This witness has falsely stated that the glass and the ring of the wrist watch recovered from the spot were of his father. In view of the injuries found in the postmortem report by blunt and sharp edged weapon, this witness has tried to say in the court that Mewa Singh and Deva Singh caused injuries by both blunt and sharp side of the Gandasis. This version of the witness amounts to material improvement to his police statement. In our view, this witness is not reliable on any aspect. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the definite opinion that the presence of this witness at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and he has not seen the incidence. 17. Now we consider the evidence of PW2 Gurdeep Singh, who is an injured witness. It is well proved that this witness was present on spot but we have to see how far this witness is reliable. This witness has stated in his examination in chief as under:- "I was going towards flour mill near to which there is a pinjja (Cotton carding machine) also. My brother Hardeep Singh was at Pinjja. Munshi Singh, Surjeet Singh, Mewa Singh and Deva Singh were beating my father in between the flour mill and the tree of Kikar. Munshi Singh and Surjeet Singh were having Selas and Mewa Singh and Deva Singh were having Gandasis. Seeing the beating, I and my brother made hue and cry. I went near my father for rescuing him. On this, Surjeet Singh gave a Sela blow on the stomach and after receiving the Sela blow I ran away and entered into the kotha of Aatma Singh. Seeing the beating, I and my brother made hue and cry. I went near my father for rescuing him. On this, Surjeet Singh gave a Sela blow on the stomach and after receiving the Sela blow I ran away and entered into the kotha of Aatma Singh. My father fell down in the street out side the house of Aatma Singh. When all the four accused ran away, I came out. At that time my brother Hardeep Singh was standing near my father and Lal Singh, Patwari Ram also came on spot." In the cross-examination, this witness has tried to say that his father was wearing a wrist watch which fell down on the spot. This version does not tally with the version of PW1 and PW8 Vichitra Kumar. This witness admitted that he has not seen the wrist watch after the occurrence. 18. This witness has stated in his court statement that Mewa Singh and Deva Singh were having Gandasis. It would be relevant to mention here that the statement of this witness Ex/P8 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This statement was recorded by the Magistrate on the date of occurrence. This witness has admitted in his cross-examination as under:- "At the time of recording of Ex.P/8 by the Magistrate, I did not state that Deva Singh and Mewa Singh were having Gandasis, I was perturbed at that time and the Magistrate did not read over the statement to me." 19. This witness has dared to say that he told in his police statement that Mewa Singh & Deva Singh were having Gandasis but when this witness was confronted from the police statement then he has mentioned as under:- "This has not been mentioned in Ex.D/2 that Mewa Singh and Deva Singh were having Gandasis in their hands. Why this fact has not been written, I cannot say." Ex.P/8 has been verified by learned Magistrate Mr. Brij Mohan Bansal, who has stated that he has written this statement as was stated by the witness. Ex.P/2 has also been proved by SHO PW8 Vichitra Kumar. Why this fact has not been written, I cannot say." Ex.P/8 has been verified by learned Magistrate Mr. Brij Mohan Bansal, who has stated that he has written this statement as was stated by the witness. Ex.P/2 has also been proved by SHO PW8 Vichitra Kumar. In this statement witness has stated in portion K to K-1 as under:- "My uncle Munshi Singh and his sons Leela Singh @ Surjeet Singh @ Neela Singh, Mewa Singh & Deva Singh all four came with Selas in their hands and started causing injuries with Selas to my father." This fact shows that this witness does not hesitate to change the old story in the new one. 20. The counsel for the State has argued that Ex.P/8 is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act because it corroborates the statement of Gurdeep Singh. He has submitted that the witness has assigned Selas in Ex.P/8 to all the four persons as he was perturbed at that time. This argument of the counsel for the State seems to be attractive but cannot be accepted because the police statement of this witness was recorded on the next day of the occurrence and in that statement also he has assigned Selas to all the four accused persons. It seems that prior to the statement of this witness, the statement of PW1 Hardeep Singh had already been recorded and he has assigned Gandasis to the two accused persons that is why this witness has assigned Gandasi to Mewa Singh & Deva Singh in his court statement for the corroboration of the statement of Hardeep Singh. Thus he has materially improved his statement in court. It would be relevant to mention here that this witness has not mentioned in either Ex.P/8 or Ex.D/2 that Mukand Singh was wearing a wrist watch at the time of incidence, which fell on spot. This improvement also seems to have been made by this witness according to the statement of PW1 Hardeep Singh. He has also improved his version in regard to the glass and ring of the wrist watch. Therefore, we are of the definite opinion that this witness is not a reliable witness and he has not put forward the real and true story of the case. 21. He has also improved his version in regard to the glass and ring of the wrist watch. Therefore, we are of the definite opinion that this witness is not a reliable witness and he has not put forward the real and true story of the case. 21. On reappraisal of evidence, it is seen that in the FIR Ex.P1, six persons were named and all the six persons were assigned omnibus role of causing injuries to deceased Mukand Singh by Selas and Gandasis but the police, after investigation, has filed charge-sheet against only four respondents and did not file challan against Chidi Singh and Phula Singh and these persons were found to be falsely implicated by the complainant party. During investigation, these two persons were said to be armed with Selas and fatal injuries No.11 and 12 in postmortem report Ex.P/12 are found to be caused by Selas so the possibility of the causing injuries by Selas by these two persons cannot be ruled out in view of the prosecution story stated in FIR Ex.P/1. 22. PW2 Gurdeep Singh, the alleged injured witness came up with the case in his statement recorded U/s.164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/8) that there were only four persons who caused injuries to his father and all the four were having Selas in their hands but this witness has changed his version during his statement in Court and materially improved his statement in regard to the weapons of offence with the accused. This witness has also improved his version in view of the injuries found in the postmortem report caused by different weapons. PW1 Hardeep Singh also during his court statement has materially changed his version and intentionally did not assign any role to Phula Singh and Chidi Singh and has gone to the extent of saying that he did not state either in Ex.P/1 or in Ex.D/1 that Chidi Singh and Phula Singh caused injuries to Mukand Singh. Both these witnesses have either improved their version or omitted the material points during their court statements which go to the root of the case. Hence, the trial Court has rightly discarded their statements without any corroboration. Apart form the numbers of accused persons and the change of weapons, these witnesses have also wrongly stated that the incidence of beating had taken place between the flour mill and the Kikar tree. Hence, the trial Court has rightly discarded their statements without any corroboration. Apart form the numbers of accused persons and the change of weapons, these witnesses have also wrongly stated that the incidence of beating had taken place between the flour mill and the Kikar tree. No blood was found on this point whereas blood was found on the point shown in the site plan between E to F where the occurrence is said to have taken place as per the defence version. 23. These two witnesses have also given false statement in regard to recovery of the axe at the spot and the glass as well as the ring of the wrist watch. Thus, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statements of these two witnesses, finding major inconsistencies on material points, viz., number of the accused persons, the weapons assigned to them, the manner in which occurrence took place, change in the place of occurrence and the recoveries of axe and parts of watch from the spot. 24. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in broad day light in the middle of the village, where there are so many dwelling houses as are shown in the site plan Ex.P/2 by the investigating officer. Though in the FIR also the names two independent eye witnesses Lal Singh and Patwari Ram have been mentioned and investigation was also made by SHO PW8 from these two witnesses but these two witnesses of the prosecution have intentionally been withheld for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Learned trial Court has rightly drawn adverse presumption under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act against prosecution for not examining these important, material and independent eye witnesses. Not only this, no independent witness has either been joined or produced in the Court in regard to spot inspection and the recoveries from the spot and even no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution for proving the recovery of weapon from the accused persons. In view of the non-production of independent witnesses in any regard, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statements of highly interested and relative witnesses of the deceased who have suppressed the material facts of the case and have intentionally given the statement on material points by putting forward the contradictory version of the initial story of the prosecution. In view of the non-production of independent witnesses in any regard, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the statements of highly interested and relative witnesses of the deceased who have suppressed the material facts of the case and have intentionally given the statement on material points by putting forward the contradictory version of the initial story of the prosecution. Not only this, the most of the story put forward by these witnesses has been falsified by the statement of investigating officer PW8 Vichitra Kumar SHO. 25. Further, Ex.P/1 in the case seems to be a post investigation document and a false story in the FIR has been inducted by the complainant party. The FIR Ex.P/1 is said to be registered at 12:30 PM on 10.06.1983 which is said to have reached to the Magistrate at 08.45 PM whereas the distance between the court and the police station is only one furlong as is admitted by PW6 Prithvi Raj, ASI as well as PW8 Vichitra Kumar, SHO. No reasonable explanation has been given by the investigating agency for not sending the FIR to the Magistrate forthwith as per the mandatory provisions u/s.157 Cr.P.C. This fact alone is sufficient to show that the FIR was not recorded at the time stated in the FIR. It is a further case of the prosecution that after registering the FIR, PW6 Prithvi Raj submitted Ex.P/13, the requisition for recording statement of Gurdeep Singh (PW2), which was subsequently recorded as Ex.P/8 by the Magistrate. This requisition, Ex.P/13 was admittedly submitted by PW6 Prithvi Raj to the Magistrate at 1.50 PM on 10.06.1983. It is very strange to note that this requisition Ex.P/13 which was received by the Magistrate at 2.00 PM on that date, does not mention FIR number of that case on this. Had this requisition been given by PW6 to the Magistrate after registering the FIR, then there was no reason for PW6 to not to mention the FIR number on this document. This fact alone shows that FIR was not existing up to 1.50 PM or uptil 2 PM and it was recorded subsequently with concoction and consultation with the complainant party. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly found the FIR post investigated document and has disbelieved the story of the prosecution. 26. This fact alone shows that FIR was not existing up to 1.50 PM or uptil 2 PM and it was recorded subsequently with concoction and consultation with the complainant party. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly found the FIR post investigated document and has disbelieved the story of the prosecution. 26. The prosecution has come out with the case that the motive of the occurrence was the land dispute between parties. PW1 Hardeep Singh and PW2 Gurdeep Singh have admitted in their statements that the possession of land was with the accused and the mutation was also marked in the name of the accused long prior to the incidence. The complainant party had to file Civil suit Ex.P/6 and an appeal against the mutation entry Ex.P/7 against the accused party. Therefore, in view of possession of the land in question and the mutation in the name of accused prior to the incident, gave a cause to the complainant party to quarrel with the accused persons and trial Court has rightly believed the defence version that deceased attacked on Munshi Singh and thereafter Munshi Singh caused injuries to Mukand Singh in his right of private defence. 27. Looking to the nature of almost all the injuries except 11 and 12 mentioned in postmortem report, the defence story is more probable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the trial Court has not committed any illegality in accepting the defence version and acquitting the respondents. 28. Furthermore, as per the story of the prosecution, the recovery of Selas was made from Munshi Singh and Surjeet Singh vide Ex.P/23 and 24 respectively and the packet of the Sela recovered from Munshi Singh was marked as F and the packet of Sela recovered from Surjeet Singh was marked as G by the SHO prior to forwarding it to FSL vide his letter Ex.P/29. The recoveries of Gandasis from Mewa Singh & Deva Singh were made through Ex.P/25 and Ex.P/26 respectively and the packets of these recoveries were marked as H & I respectively. No independent witness has been produced by the prosecution regarding the weapons of offence recovered from the accused persons. More so, these recoveries were made from the accused persons on 24.6.1983 after the delay of 5-6 days from their arrests which were made on 18.6.83 and 19.6.83 vide Ex.P/15 to 18. No independent witness has been produced by the prosecution regarding the weapons of offence recovered from the accused persons. More so, these recoveries were made from the accused persons on 24.6.1983 after the delay of 5-6 days from their arrests which were made on 18.6.83 and 19.6.83 vide Ex.P/15 to 18. No reasons have been assigned by the investigating agency for such a long delay in making recoveries from the accused persons, when the accused person were in their custody from 18-6-83 and 19.6.83. More so, the weapon of Mewa Singh & Deva Singh was not connected with the crime as per FSL report Ex.P/28 whereas human blood was found on the alleged Sela recovered from Munshi Singh. The finding of blood stains on the weapon of Munshi Singh supports the defence version and goes to show that Surjeet Singh, Mewa Singh & Deva Singh have been falsely implicated in the case, hence, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents by accepting the defence story. 29. On careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment and order, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the trial Court for its conclusion. The trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons for not believing the testimony of prosecution witnesses whose evidence is bristled with contradictions as they have improved their version from stage to stage and also given total go-bye to the statement made in the FIR. Their conduct is also unnatural. The Investigating Officer is silent as to why FIR reached to the Magistrate at 8:45 PM which was lodged at 12:30 PM i.e. after an abnormal delay of 8 hours when the distance is only one furlong between Police Station and the Court of Judicial Magistrate. So far as axe seized from the place of occurrence by the police is concerned, the prosecution is silent as to who brought this. The two Gandasis recovered by the police were not stained with blood and the Sela recovered was also having no blood stains. Accused Munshi Singh in unequivocal terms has stated that in right of private defence he caused injuries to Mukund Singh. Therefore, according to us, defence story is more probable than the prosecution story. 30. The two Gandasis recovered by the police were not stained with blood and the Sela recovered was also having no blood stains. Accused Munshi Singh in unequivocal terms has stated that in right of private defence he caused injuries to Mukund Singh. Therefore, according to us, defence story is more probable than the prosecution story. 30. In view of the unsatisfactory evidence led by the prosecution, according to us, the findings recorded by the trial Court, are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings no illegality or infirmity is committed. The trial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for not accepting the evidence of PW1 Hardeep Singh and PW2 Gurdeep Singh in paragraph 10 to 20 of the impugned judgment and order. We are in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and resultant order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, as, in our view, no other conclusion is possible except the one reached by the trial Court. 31. This is an acquittal appeal. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3255 . (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. (c) 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. (d) In 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. (e) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraised 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. (f) 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 of witnesses and observing their conduct in Court, especially in the witness box. (g) 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. 32. In Anokh Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1992 SC p.598 , Supreme Court has held that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should attach greater weight to appreciation of evidence by the trial Court who had the occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses. 33. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible then also appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. See Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 . In the instant case, the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 34. See Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 . In the instant case, the learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 34. On overall appreciation of evidence, this Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused. Suffice to say that the learned Sessions Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused and the learned PP has failed to dislodge the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge and convince this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned Sessions Judge. 35. Seen in the above context, we do not find any valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused of the offence with which they were charged. Therefore, appeal lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 36. Since accused No.1 has died during the pendency of appeal, the appeal filed by the State against him stands abated vide separate order passed by this Court on 16.12.1997 whereas appeal filed against remaining accused i.e. accused No.A-2, A-3 & A-4 fails and accordingly it is dismissed for the reasons stated above. These three accused are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled.Appeal Dismissed. *******