JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Sessions Judge, Alwar vide judgment and order dated 27th July, 1984 in Sessions Case No. 99/83 acquitted six accused persons namely Bhondu, Mangalram, Gangaram, Harchand, Ramdayal and Harbhajan from the charges under Sections 148, 302, 323 read with section 149 IPC. Being aggrieved with the same, the State of Rajasthan preferred D.B. Cr. Leave to Appeal No. 273/1984 against all the six accused persons. This court vide order dated 19th July, 1985 granted leave against respondent Harbhajan alone and refused to grant leave against remaining five accused persons. Therefore, appeal was registered only against respondent Harbhajan. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the appeal are that on 22nd September, 1983 FIR No. 160/83 was registered at P.S. Sadar, Alwar on the basis of oral report lodged by one Lallu S/o Sohanlal under Section 147, 148, 149, 341 and 324 IPC. It was alleged that on 22nd September, 1983 at about 6-7 p.m. deceased Sohan Lal with his sons Devi Sahai and Lallu Ram and Smt. Shrawan W/o Devi Sahai were returning from their agricultural field and at that time the accused persons started beating to their person, when they reached near their house. It was further alleged that accused Harbhajan was armed with 'pharsi' and other accused persons were armed with lathies. It was alleged that accused Harbhajan inflicted 'pharsi' blow on the head of deceased Mohan Lal and accused Ramdayal inflicted lathi blow on the person of Sohan Lal, accused Harchand inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Devi Sahai. It was alleged that Kale Khan and Chhaju came at the place of incident and intervened. Thereafter Sohan Lal was taken to the hospital where he was got admitted. He was subsequently discharged but on 17th October, 1983 he died. A postmortem of dead body of Sohan Lal was conducted by PW.3 Dr. Subhash Chand Gupta. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against above-named six accused persons. The case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, who framed charges against accused persons but they denied the same and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The case was committed for trial to the court of Sessions Judge, who framed charges against accused persons but they denied the same and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. wherein they stated that it was the complainant party, who inflicted injuries on the person of Smt. Ramwati and accused persons namely Harbhajan and Ramdayal and a report was lodged by them against the complainant party. In defence Ex. D.1 to D.10 were produced. The learned trial court after considering the submissions of the parties and examining the record acquitted all the six accused persons. 5. The submission of the learned public prosecutor is that learned trial court committed illegality in acquitting the accused respondent Harbhajan despite a fact that statement of independent witness P.W4 Chhaju Ram and Ex. P14 dying declaration of deceased were available on the record. He contended that from dying declaration Ex. P14 it was clear beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Harbhajan inflicted a 'pharsi' blow from its back on the person of deceased Sohan Lai and the same was corroborated by his injury report as well as postmortem report. He also contended that from the statements of P.W1 Lallu Ram, PW.5 Devi Sahai and P.W6 Smt. Shrawan, who are eye-witnesses to the incident, that the charge against the respondent was fully proved and the trial court committed illegality in acquitting the accused respondent from all the charges, therefore, it is a fit case where this court should interfere in the order of acquittal of the accused-respondent Harbhajan against whom leave to appeal was granted by this court and he should be convicted. 6. Per contra Mr. Praveen Balwada, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned trial court was fully justified in disbelieving the testimony of eye-witnesses PW4, PW1, PW.5 and PW.6. He further contended that the trial court was right in holding that origin of the case has not been disclosed correctly by the prosecution before the court by not explaining the injuries sustained by accused persons in the same incident vide injury reports Ex. P3, Ex. He further contended that the trial court was right in holding that origin of the case has not been disclosed correctly by the prosecution before the court by not explaining the injuries sustained by accused persons in the same incident vide injury reports Ex. P3, Ex. P4 and P.S. It is further contended that deceased Sohan Lal sustained only two injuries, out of which injury No.2 was abrasion and injury No. 1 was lacerated wound and on that basis initially the case was registered under Sections 323 and 324 IPC and even as per statement of PW.3 Dr. Subhash Chand Gupta, injury No.1 was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also referred to Ex. D.10, a copy of challan which was filed against the complainant party on the basis of the report lodged by the accused Harbhajan for the same incident. He also submitted that this is an appeal against the order of acquittal and it is a settled law that the order of acquittal should not be disturbed or reversed unless there are substantial or compelling reasons for doing so. He also submitted that even if two views are possible on the appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. He, therefore, contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same accordingly be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the reasons of acquittal of respondent recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and have gone through the material placed on the record. 8. From the record which was referred during the course of the arguments and which we have examined it is clear that initially Ex. D.8 FIR No. 159/83 was lodged by accused respondent Harbhajan against Lallu PW.1, Devi Sahai PW.5 Chhaju PW.4 Smt. Shrawan PW.6 deceased Sohan Lal and other five persons and after completion of investigation a charge-sheet Ex.D.10 was filed against them. So far as present FIR No. 160/83 is concerned it is clear that on the basis of the injuries sustained by injured persons Sohan Lal and Smt. Shrawan, the police registered the FIR for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. So far as present FIR No. 160/83 is concerned it is clear that on the basis of the injuries sustained by injured persons Sohan Lal and Smt. Shrawan, the police registered the FIR for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The incident took place on 26th September, 1983. Sohan Lal was admitted in the hospital and he was discharged and later on he died on 17th October, 1983. His statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. was recorded on 23rd September, 1983 i.e. the next day of the incident and he died after 26 days thereafter i.e. on 17th October, 1983. The deceased Sohan Lal sustained only two injuries out of which, injury No. 2 was only abrasion. Smt. Shrawan PW.6 also sustained two injuries. It is also relevant to mention that accused party namely respondent Harbhajan sustained two injuries vide Ex. D.4, accused Ramdayal sustained three injuries vide Ex.D.5 and accused Smt. Ramwati sustained one injury vide Ex. D.3. The learned Sessions Judge has considered and discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and has recorded number of reasons for disbelieving the testimony of the eye-witnesses namely PW.1 Lallu, PW.5 Devi Sahai, PW.6 Smt. Shrawan and PW.4 Chhaju. We have also examined their testimony in detail and we find that the reasons assigned by the trial court for disbelieving the testimony of these eye-witnesses are perfectly justified. The learned public prosecutor has not pointed out any illegality or perversity in the said finding warranting any interference by this court. 9. From the evidence available on the record it is clear that in Ex. P1 FIR it is not mentioned that Harbhajan inflicted a 'pharsi' blow on the person of deceased Sohan Lal from its back side, P.W.1 Lallu Lal did not mention this fact in his statement Ex. D.1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. during investigation of the case. PW.4 Chhaju, who is stated to be independent eye-witness, has not stated even before the trial court that Harbhajan inflicted 'pharsi' blow from its back side on the person of deceased Sohan Lal. It is presumed that when accused was armed with pharsi he would have used its front side but there is no injury on the person of deceased by sharp edged weapon and the fact that 'pharsi' was used from its back side, was not mentioned in the FIR, nor it was stated before the trial court. 10. It is presumed that when accused was armed with pharsi he would have used its front side but there is no injury on the person of deceased by sharp edged weapon and the fact that 'pharsi' was used from its back side, was not mentioned in the FIR, nor it was stated before the trial court. 10. P.W.1 Lallu Ram and PW.5 Devi Sahai have stated that accused Harchand inflicted lathi blow on their person but they were not medically examined and no injury was sustained by them. 11. The prosecution witnesses have stated that quarrel took place and injuries were inflicted for 10-15 minutes continuously but the number and the nature of injuries will disclose that deceased Sohan Lal and St. Shrawan sustained only 2-2 injuries respectively. The learned trial court has observed that if the accused persons would have inflicted injuries for 10-15 minutes then it is not believable that the complainant party would have sustained only 2-2 total 4 injuries. 12. So far as the injuries sustained by the deceased are concerned, P.W.1 Lallu has stated that the said injury was inflicted by accused Ramdayal whereas PW.4 Chhaju Ram so called independent eye-witness does not corroborate this fact and he does not state that Ramdayal inflicted blow on the person of Sohan Lal Similarly PW.5 Smt. Shrawan has also not stated that Ramdayal inflicted any injury on the person of Sohan Lal. 13. It is also relevant to mention that Ex.P1 FIR will show that in the complainant party (sic) one person namely Prabhati was also there and his name was mentioned in the FIR but during the course of investigation, the investigation agency came to the conclusion that his name was falsely taken by the complainant party and no challan was filled against him. It also creates doubt on the case of the prosecution. 14. As per close scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses PW.1, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 it is clear that they have not stated a single word as to how and under what circumstances, the accused persons sustained injuries. They have not given any explanation about lodging of FIR Ex. D.8 against them, which creates serious doubt on genuineness of the prosecution case. 15. They have not given any explanation about lodging of FIR Ex. D.8 against them, which creates serious doubt on genuineness of the prosecution case. 15. So far as so called dying declaration Ex.P14 is concerned, we have examined it from the record of the trial court and we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was fully justified in not believing on it. The learned public prosecutor has not pointed out any illegality or perversity in the finding of the learned trial court in this regard and after a close scrutiny of it we also do not find any illegality or perversity in it. 16. It is relevant to mention that this court vide order dated 19th July, 1985 refused to grant leave to. appeal against five accused persons and finding of the learned trial court in this regard has attained finality. 17. We are also conscious that we are deciding an appeal against an order of acquittal. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bacchudas @ Balaram & Ors., 2007 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 357 : AIR 2007 SC 1236 observed 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. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless there are some compeling and substantial reasons or circumstances for doing so. 18. Recently in the matter of Dhanpal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, 2010(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 125 : 2009 (10) SCC 401 Hon'ble Apex Court again considered the powers of appellate courts to interfere in the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court and held that the appellate court may only over-rule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal order if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. It was further held that if two reasonable or possible views can be reached and one leading to acquittal and other to the conviction, then the High Court/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. 19. In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******