JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan, being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 17.9.1981 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 68/81 has preferred this appeal. The trial Court vide its impugned judgment has acquitted the accused respondent from the charge of the offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. The facts of the case in nut shell are that Ex.P/6, written report, at Police Station Masuda, was lodged by PW/6 Jaman Lal, the brother of deceased Manohar on 7.5.81 wherein it was alleged that on 4.5.81 his brother Manohar Lal, who was coming to his house and when he reached near Darmai Tank in village Jamola, the accused Gurudayal @ Chhotu stopped him and inflicted lathi blow on his head. This incident has been seen by Chhitar S/o Hazari and Bheema S/o Mala Rawat. It was also alleged that due to said injury Manohar became unconscious and Chhitar and Bheema informed him about this; that his brother Manohar died on 6.5.81, therefore, the case be registered. On the basis of above report, FIR No. 25/81 (Ex.P/7) was registered under Section 302 IPC and investigation commenced. As per postmortem report conducted by PW/1 Dr. Vasudev, two injuries were found on the person of deceased. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against accused respondent under Section 302 IPC. The case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The trial Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC, which was denied by him and he claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW/1 to PW/15. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; no defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties, acquitted the respondent. 3. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that this is a case wherein the prosecution examined eye witness namely Chhitar (PW/2) and Bheema (PW/3) and both of them stated that the accused inflicted a lathi ((blunt object) blow on the person of deceased which proved to be fatal but still the trial Court acquitted him, therefore, this is a fit case wherein this Court 'should interfere in the order of acquittal and accused be punished. 4. 4. No one is present on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice, therefore, we could not get any assistance from the defence side. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the State and we have ourselves minutely examined the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial Court. 5. The trial Court after considering all the evidence available on record disbelieved the statement of both the eye-witnesses by giving cogent reasons. The reasons for disbelieving the statement of PW/2 Chittar have been given in Para 10 of the impugned judgment. The reasons for disbelieving the statement of PW/3 Bheema have been given in Para 11 of the impugned judgment. The learned Public Prosecutor read the statements of both the eye-witnesses and also the statement of Doctor.PW/2 Chhitar stated that first of all he informed about the incident to Master Ram Lal and Banwari Lal but both of them were not examined by the prosecution in the present case. Chhitar also admitted that he did not make any hue and cry when the accused was inflicting injury on the person of deceased. The trial Court observed that it was unnatural on the part of Chhitar. Chhitar further admitted that he did not inform the police during investigation and at the time of recording his statement that he informed about the incident to Banwari Lal and Ram Lal. He also admitted that he did not disclose this fact to his wife.Similarly, PW/3 Bheema has not corroborated the statement of PW/2 Chhitar fully and gave contradictory statements. More so, he admitted that he did not inform the police that Guru Dayal inflicted a blow at the left ear of the deceased. Chittar stated that Chhitar and Bheema both took Manohar whereas Bheema stated that in addition to both of them, Devilal was also there to help them. The statement of Bheema was recorded after number of days without any cogent explanation. The trial Court in these circumstances has observed that both the witnesses have improved their statements in the Court.Apart from the above, it is also relevant to mention here that the prosecution has not proved any motive or enmity for committing murder of deceased Manohar Lal by accused Gurudayal. The trial Court in these circumstances has observed that both the witnesses have improved their statements in the Court.Apart from the above, it is also relevant to mention here that the prosecution has not proved any motive or enmity for committing murder of deceased Manohar Lal by accused Gurudayal. It is also to be noted that the incident took place on 4th May, 1981 and immediately thereafter, Manohar Lal was admitted in hospital but neither father nor brother of the deceased lodged report nor the Doctor of the hospital informed the police in this regard. He was shifted to another hospital where he died on 6.5.1981. Thereafter, Dr. S.C. Nama sent an information on 6.5.1981 to SHO, Kotwali, Ajmer that Manohar Lal was admitted on 4.5.1981 and he expired today. He was referred from Masuda, kindly to do the needful. On the basis of this written information, the police registered a case under Section 174 Cr.PC. It is relevant to mention that the statement of Moti Lal, father of deceased was recorded on 6.5.1981 itself and placed on record as Ex.D/2 and which has been proved by the Investigating Officer Ram Narain and a bare perusal of it will show that he did not disclose the name of accused in it, rather he specifically stated that "who killed Manohar and why, he cannot say in this regard." The statement of father Moti (Ex.D/2) is an important evidence. From the entire record, it appears that the name of accused was not known to anyone from 4th May, to 6th May, 1981 and it was not disclosed to anyone including police. Even both the eye-witnesses did not disclose the name of accused, either to father or brother of the deceased or to the police. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in disbelieving the statement of both the eye-witnesses PW/2 Chhitar and PW/3 Bheema.The learned Public Prosecutor argued the case at length but could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment so as to interfere in it, particularly when it is an order of acquittal of the respondent. 6. It is a settled law that order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless there are some compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. 6. It is a settled law that order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless there are some compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It is also a settled -law that even 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. In this connection we may also refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bacchudas alias Balram & Ors., reported in 2007(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 357 : AIR 2007 SC 1236 . Para 9 of the judgment reproduced as under - "9. 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 where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., 2003(3) SCC 21 ). The principle to be followed by the 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 unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. The principle to be followed by the 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 unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 (2) SCC 793 ; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, 1996 (9) SCC 225 ; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (4) SCC 484 ; Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, 2003 (11) SCC 519 ; State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, 2003 (11) SCC 271 ; State of Punjab v. Phola Singh, 2003 (11) SCC 58 ; Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal, 2003 (11) SCC 527 and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2004 (11) SCC 410 ." 7. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any compelling or substantial reasons so as to interfere in the impugned order of acquittal of accused-respondent.The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.Appeal Dismissed. *******