Judgment : R. MURGESEN, J. This is a pathetic case where a police driver viz. Paul Arumaidurai, while discharging his duties was butchered and killed by a mob with nearly 20 injuries in the police station itself; 2. As against the Judgment dated 18.7.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge.(Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 291 of 1935, acquitting all the accused by giving the benefit of doubt, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 3. The background facts of the case, in a nutshell put forth by the prosecution through oral and documentary evidence are as follows:- On 28.10.1992 at 5.00 p.m., P.W.15 – Pathamuthu Sub Inspector of Police arrested A-31-Ramachandran and A-32-Chidambaram in connection with Valliyoor Police Station. Crime No.450 and 451 of 1992 for the offence under Section 20(1) (b) NDPS Act and they were kept in Valliyoor Police Station to be sent for remand. The first accused – Murugan is the brother, of A-31-Ramachandran. In order to rescue A-31 and A-32, A-1 along with other accused formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object, they trespassed into the police station and damaged the property. At that time, PWs.1,2 and 4, who are the police personnel were present there. When all the accused attempted to rescue A-31 and A-32, the police constable Paul Arumaidurai resisted them. A-31 and A-32 instigated other accused to kill the police constable and therefore, A-1 and A-2 dragged him from the police station and A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 cut him with aruval and murdered him. The other accused were being the member of unlawful assembly and committed the offence on the basis of complaint given by one Head Constable Velu under Exhibit P-24, P.W.15-Sub Inspector – Parthamuthu registered a case in crime No. 452 of 1992 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 224, 225, 307, 302 and 109 I.P.C. The Printed F.I.R is Exhibit P-25. He had forwarded the complaint and the printed F.I.R. to the Court as well as to higher officials. P.W.20 – Revenue, Division officer on receipt of the information, went to Valliyoor Police Station at 2.15 a.m., and obtained the F.I.R. He took up the investigation. He prepared Observation Mahazar under Exhibit P-9 and Rough Sketch under Exhibit P-28. He had forwarded the complaint and the printed F.I.R. to the Court as well as to higher officials. P.W.20 – Revenue, Division officer on receipt of the information, went to Valliyoor Police Station at 2.15 a.m., and obtained the F.I.R. He took up the investigation. He prepared Observation Mahazar under Exhibit P-9 and Rough Sketch under Exhibit P-28. Around 4.15 a.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body of the victim and the Inquest Report is Exhibit P-29. He Forwarded the dead body along with a requisition, on 29.10.1992 at 12.15 p.m., P.W.6 conducted the post mortem and she found following 20 injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. Incisedgaping injury of left side of forehead 2. Incisedinjury on occipital region of head 3. Incised gaping injury of left cheek 4. Incisedinjury in left side frontal region of head 5. Incised gaping injury below left eyebrow cutting left ear 6. Incisedgaping injury below left collar bone 7. Incised gaping injury, on left shoulder 8. Incised gaping injury of left arm 9. Incisedgaping injury above left elbow seen 10. Incised gaping injury above left wrist 11. Incised gaping injury of left wrist wrist with fracture wrist bones 12. Incised gaping injury on left thigh 13. Incised gaping injury on left hand 14. Incised gaping injury on anterial aspect of right ankle 15. Incised gaping injury on left scapular region 16. Incised injury on back of neck 17. Incised gaping injury below right axilla 18. Incised gaping injury on right hand cutting index finger 19. Incised gaping injury on left palm 20. Incised gaping injury on posterior aspect of left upper arm Opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, the Doctor issued Exhibit P-5-Post Mortem. Certificate. 4. In continuation of his investigation, P.W.20 examined the witnesses and recorded, their statements. He recovered blood stained broken glass pieces, broken wooden logs from windows, black colour plastic cane, axe, empty bullet and sent the same to Court. Subsequently, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Around 3 p.m., he arrested the accused Chithirai, Ganesan, Ganapathi, Dhanapal, Maharajan, Vanumamalai, Chelladurai and brought them to police station. On 30.10.1992 he examined taxi drivers and recorded their statements. On 4.11.1992 he examined the Doctor – P.W.6 who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and recorded her statement. Around 3 p.m., he arrested the accused Chithirai, Ganesan, Ganapathi, Dhanapal, Maharajan, Vanumamalai, Chelladurai and brought them to police station. On 30.10.1992 he examined taxi drivers and recorded their statements. On 4.11.1992 he examined the Doctor – P.W.6 who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and recorded her statement. He proceeded with the investigation. On 6.11.1992, P.W.20 received an intimation regarding the surrender of Madasamy before J.M. No.I, Tirunelveli, On 8.11.1992, he recorded the statement of one Subramani, who took the first accused from Nanguneri bus stand to Srivaikundam for medical treatment. On 10.1.1992, P.W.15 and P.W.16-Sub-Inspector of Police arrested Sundarapandian and Manoharan respectively and produced them before P.W.20, who sent the accused to judicial custody and recorded their statements. On 11.11.1992, P.W.15 arrested Arumugam and produced before P.W.20. On 13.11.1992, he took Murugan into Police custody and recorded his confession statement and seized the material objects viz., blood stained clothes and Aruval and also recorded statements from Ponchelladurai P.W.9 and Veerabagu. On 14.11.1992, he took Madasamy into police custody and recorded his statement and seized the material objects viz., blood stained clothes and Aruval and also recorded statement from Ponchelladurai P.W.9 and Veerabagu. On 15.11.1992 P.W.20 arrested the accused Muthu. On 16.11.1992, P.W.17 Arrested Senthil Athiban and produced him before P.W.20. On 17.11.1992, P.W.20 examined Dr.Meeran and recorded his statement. To examine the injuries caused to the first accused, he sent a requisition to Dr.Paramasivam, Medical College Hospital, Tiruelveli. On 27.11.1992, he examined the said doctor and recorded his statement. On 5.12.1992 Dr. Meeran and Dr. Panneerselvam participated in the test identification parade. On 10.1.1993, he arrested Ayyapan and sent to Court for remand. On 13.1.1993, he further examined the police personnel and recorded their statements. P.W.20 also examined Selvam the Court staff of Valliyoor recorded his statement. After examination of the witnesses and after competition of his investigation, P.W.20 laid the final report against the accused under Sections 148, 149, 449, 224, 225, 307, 302 and 109 I.P.C on 24.1.1993. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Session Charges under Sections 148,449, 225(B), 302 read with 109, 302, 302 read with 149 I.P.C were framed against the accused by the trial Court and in order to substantiate the charges levelled against them, the prosecution marched 20 witnesses and relied on 30 exhibits and 18 material objects. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Session Charges under Sections 148,449, 225(B), 302 read with 109, 302, 302 read with 149 I.P.C were framed against the accused by the trial Court and in order to substantiate the charges levelled against them, the prosecution marched 20 witnesses and relied on 30 exhibits and 18 material objects. On the side of the accussed, no witnesses were examined however, Lock up room photo was marked as Exhibit D-1 on completion of evidence, and the 4 accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the witnesses. They flatly denied them as false. 6. Having considered the evidence available on record both oral and documentary, the learned Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 291 of 1995 found the appellants herein/accused 1 and 2 not guilty, and acquitted all of them from all the charges. Hence, the State has come forward with the present Criminal Appeal. 7. We have heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for the respondents and the evidence available on record carefully and meticulously. 9. The point for determination in this Criminal Appeal is as to whether the judgment of the Court below, acquitting the respondents/Accused 1 to 34 suffer from any defect or illegality, capable of being interfered with in exercise of the Appellate power of this Court? 10. In Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka AIR 1997 SC 3255 : (1997) SCC (Cr) 992, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the following principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court:- “(1) 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. (2) 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 are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (2) 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 are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (3) 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 and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused in entitled to acquittal. (4) 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. (5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal 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. (6) 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 their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box. (7) 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. 11. Now, we have to analyse the case on hand with the above said touchstone decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case on hand, on 28.10.1992 at 5.00 p.m., A-31-Ramachandran and A-32-Chithambaram were arrested by P.W.15. Pathamuthu Sub Inspector of Police in connection with Valliyoor Police Station Crime No. 450 and 451 of 1992 for the offence under Section 20(1) (b) of NDPS Act and they were kept in the Valliyoor Police Station to be sent for remand. According to the prosecution, in order to rescue A-31 and A-32, A-1 along with other accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object, they trespassed into the police station and damaged the property. According to the prosecution, in order to rescue A-31 and A-32, A-1 along with other accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of common object, they trespassed into the police station and damaged the property. When the police constable Paul Arumaidurai resisted them, A-31 and A-32 instigated other accused to kill the police constable and therefore, A-1 and A-2 dragged him from the police station and A-1 and A-3 and A-5 to A-7 cut him with aruval and murdered him. To strengthen its case, the prosecution has relied on P.Ws.1,2 and 4-Police Constables. 12. It is surprise to note that none of the eye witnesses sustained injury in the melee. In order to prove that they were present in the police station at the time of occurrence, General Diary and Pocket book are available. However, these documents were ot produced and marked by the prosecution to establish that they were present at the time of occurrence. Further, it is to be seen that the complaint was registered within 15 minutes of the occurrence. A perusal of the Complaint, which runs upto six pages would go to show that the name of the father of all the accused were mentioned. It is to be wondered as to how it is possible to write six pages complaint within 15 minutes with minute details in such a situation that too with the name of the father of all the accused. When the eye witnesses were examined in the chief – examinations, they have spoken about the father of all the accused. However, in the cross-examination, they were not in a position to explain about the identity of the accused. The occurrence took place in the year 1992 and they forget about the identity of the accused when they were examined in Court is not quite convincing. When the eye witnesses were very particular about the identity of the accused in the Chief-examination, their inability to identify them in the cross-examination weakens the case of the prosecution. Further, there4 were no damages to the properties caused by the accused party. By taking photographs of the alleged damages caused to the police station, the damage can be proved very easily. However, in this very serious nature of the case, the prosecution has not come forward with any photograph to show the damage to the police station and articles. Further, there4 were no damages to the properties caused by the accused party. By taking photographs of the alleged damages caused to the police station, the damage can be proved very easily. However, in this very serious nature of the case, the prosecution has not come forward with any photograph to show the damage to the police station and articles. Nothing prevented the investigation officer to take photographs of the damage caused by the accused. The eye witness admitted that the god photos were not damaged in the melee. When nearly 34 persons assembled and caused damaged certainly there must be some damage even to god photos. No material evidence was produced to substantiate the damage caused by the accused. Though it is stated that VHF was not damaged, message was not given to the higher officials. In their evidence, P.Ws.1 to 4 have spoken that they were threatened. However, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 4 would go to show that they pretend as if they were threatened. One of the police personnel said that he opened fire, however, the discharged cartridge was not produced. He was not examined. The weapon also not produced. If that version is true, when there were 34 persons, certainly some body must have been injured. But, none of the accused received any bullet injuries. The said weapon was also not sent to the Forensic Lab to prove the said plea. In paragraph 40 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Judge had given his reasonings for disbelieving the theory of firing. The prosecution has not come forward with any favourable explanation to differ from the said findings of the Court below. Further, there is great doubt about the identification of the accused. Identification parade was conducted in respect of A-33 and A-34. However, they informed the learned Judicial Magistrate that they were shown to the witnesses when they were taken for remand to Magistrate Court. Hence, the Test Identification Parade conduct is not much helpful for the prosecution because the accused themselves informed about the exposure of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused in the manner known to law. The defence also raised a doubt about the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence, which is not clearly established by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused in the manner known to law. The defence also raised a doubt about the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence, which is not clearly established by the prosecution. Even though it is stated that the deceased on duty, no uniform or belt were recovered. 13. When we cumulatively assess the features for and against the prosecution case and lay them in the balance, we have no option but to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with the correct version of the genesis of the occurrence and to disbelieve the Prosecution case. 14. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No. 1), Tirunelveli after analyzing the materials available on record carefully and meticulously found the respondents/accused not guilty and by giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted all of them from the charges. On careful consideration of the evidence available both oral and documentary and the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Judgment of the Court below. 15. In the result, the judgment dated 18.7.2002, of the learned Additional Sessions judge, (Fast Track Court No.I), Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 291 of 1995 is confirmed and this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.