Judgment Bankim N. Mehta, J.—Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 5.2.2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-4, Bharuch, in Sessions Case No. 77/2004. Criminal Appeal No. 639/2005 is preferred by Praful @ Bachubhai Chandubhai Vasava (original accused No. 3), who is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 396 & 302 read with Section 120B and Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code [“IPC” for short] and is sentenced to undergo various sentences. But, he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 484/2006 is filed by the State against acquittal of original accused Nos. 1,2 & 4 in the aforesaid Sessions Case. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and incident, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. According to the prosecution case, in the late night/ early morning of 11.2.2003, convict-appellant-Praful @ Bachubhai Vasava with Devising Dadubhai, Daudbhai Devabhai, Kamlesh Dadubhai, Sanjaybhai Villiumbhai Vasava and Gatubhai Chunibhai Vasava, all armed with deadly weapons, broke opened the rear door of the house of deceased Bhudarbhai Govindbhai Vasava and entered the house. Devising Dadubhai Vasava inflicted sword blow on the head of the deceased and the other accused persons also caused fatal injuries to him. The accused broke opened the cupboard and took away ornaments lying therein. The appellant and other accused persons also caused damage to the fixtures with axe, to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. Despite the shouts being raised, no one came to the rescue of the deceased and his wife Kapilaben. The deceased-Bhudarbhai, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the assault. Therefore, Kapilaben, widow of Bhudarbhai Govindbhai Vasava, lodged F.I.R with Jhagadia Police Station on 11.2.2003. 3. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the wife of the deceased, offence was registered and investigation was started. During the course of investigation, dead body of Bhudarbhai was sent for post-mortem. Various panchnamas were drawn. During the course of investigation, some of the accused were arrested and charge sheet for the aforesaid offences was filed against them in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhagadia. During the course of investigation, dead body of Bhudarbhai was sent for post-mortem. Various panchnamas were drawn. During the course of investigation, some of the accused were arrested and charge sheet for the aforesaid offences was filed against them in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhagadia. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bharuch, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 102/2003. The trial Court recorded evidence in the said Sessions Case and disposed it of by judgment and order dated 27.8.2004. 4. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 639/2005 and three other accused persons remained absconding. On their arrest, supplementary charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhagadia, for the aforesaid offences. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court at Bharuch, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 77/2004. The learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-5, Bharuch, framed charge at Exh.6 against the appellant-accused and three other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 302 & 427 read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. 5. On completion of recording of the evidence, the learned Judge explained to the accused the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused, in their further statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. 6. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and hearing the learned A.P.P for the State as well as the learned Counsel for the accused, the trial Court convicted the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 639/2005 and sentenced him, as referred to hereinabove, but acquitted the other three accused persons, who are the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 484/2006 preferred by the State challenging their acquittal, by judgment and order dated 5.2.2005, giving rise to these appeals. 7. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Mankad appearing for learned Advocate Mr. Parmar for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 639/2005 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 484/2006 and the learned A.P.P. Mr. 7. Heard learned Counsel Mr. Mankad appearing for learned Advocate Mr. Parmar for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 639/2005 and the respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 484/2006 and the learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya for the State, at length and in great detail. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Mankad has extensively taken us through the oral evidence of eye-witness Kapilaben, widow of deceased Bhudarbhai, who has been examined as PW. 1 at Exh.12, and submitted that eye-witness Kapilaben, in her deposition, has stated that the appellant Prafulbhai was armed with axe, but, during the course of investigation, axe was not discovered or recovered and in absence of muddamal article, the trial Court committed an error in connecting the appellant-accused with the offences. He has further submitted that fatal injury to the deceased was not inflicted by the appellant and, therefore, he could not have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 302 & 427 IPC. He has also submitted that looking to the nature of the offence, there was no active participation of the appellant in causing fatal injury to the deceased and, therefore, the trial Court wrongly convicted and sentenced him for life imprisonment. Mr. Mankad stressed that, at the most, the appellant could have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of ten years. Lastly, he urged that, therefore, the appeal filed by the convict deserves to be accepted. 8.1 So far as Criminal Appeal No. 484/2006 filed by the State against acquittal of the co-accused/respondents therein, is concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Mankad has submitted that the sole eye-witness Kapilaben, in her cross-examination, has stated that she had nothing to say against other accused-persons. He also asserted that FIR (Exh.13) does not involve the other accused persons, except the convicted appellant and, thus, there is no evidence to connect the acquitted accused with the offence. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal preferred by the State against acquittal of other accused persons is devoid of any merits and the same requires to be dismissed. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pandya has supported the judgment and order, in so far as conviction of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 639/2005 is concerned, and has submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes the active participation of the appellant in commission of the offence and the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing him. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pandya has supported the judgment and order, in so far as conviction of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 639/2005 is concerned, and has submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes the active participation of the appellant in commission of the offence and the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing him. He has further submitted that the convicted accused in Sessions Case No. 102/2003, in respect of the same incident, had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1687/2004 before this Court and by common judgment dated 3.4.2006 rendered in Criminal Confirmation Case No. 8/2004 filed by the State with Criminal Appeal No. 1687/2004, this Court has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court in the above-referred to Sessions Case. Mr. Pandya has lastly submitted that, therefore, the trial Court has rightly believed the case of the prosecution and the appeal filed by the convicted accused has no substance and the same deserves dismissal. 9.1 As regards the acquittal appeal, learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya has contended that there is ample evidence to connect the acquitted accused with the offences, but, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its true perspective and, therefore, the acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed and the acquitted accused are required to be punished for the offences with which they were charged, according to law. 10. This Court has also undertaken a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all vital features of the case and the entire evidence on record with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case. The fact that the deceased had died a homicidal death is not in dispute. The injuries sustained by the deceased have been noticed in the inquest panchnama. Further, the evidence of Dr. Chauvala Gharia (PW. 10, Exh.31), would show that the deceased had sustained antemortem injuries and that his death had taken place due to the injuries caused to him by a sharp edged weapon. It is nobody’s case that the deceased had committed suicide. The finding recorded by the learned Judge of the trial Court that it is proved by the prosecution that the deceased had died a homicidal death is eminently just and is hereby upheld. 11. It is nobody’s case that the deceased had committed suicide. The finding recorded by the learned Judge of the trial Court that it is proved by the prosecution that the deceased had died a homicidal death is eminently just and is hereby upheld. 11. It appears that the incident occurred on 11.2.2003 and some of the accused were arrested during the course of investigation and charge sheet was filed against them and Sessions Case No. 102/2003 was registered before the Sessions Court, Bharuch. After the trial, the Court convicted and sentenced the accused in Sessions Case No. 102/2003. It also appears that one of the convicts, namely, Devising Dadubhai Vasava in the said Sessions Case was awarded death sentence. Therefore, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1687/2004 and the State filed Criminal Confirmation Case No. 8/2004 before this Court. They were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 3.4.2006, whereby the appeal of the convict was dismissed and his conviction was confirmed. The convicted appellant and the acquitted accused remained absconding and were arrested after about a year and, therefore, supplementary charge sheet was filed against them and trial was conducted separately. The appellant was convicted, but other accused persons were acquitted. Therefore, these two appeals are preferred. 12. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the oral testimony of sole eye-witness Kapilaben, widow of deceased Bhudarbhai, who has been examined as PW. 1 at Exh.12. She was present at the time of the incident. According to the witness, the incident occurred at about 1 AM. She has deposed that the appellant with other persons broke opened the rear door of her house and they were armed with deadly weapons. She has also deposed that the appellant was armed with an axe and had inflicted blows with axe on the person of her husband and caused fatal injuries to him and, therefore, he died. The witness has further deposed that the accused took away ornaments, clothes, utensils and other households from her house. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant inflicted axe blows on the person of her husband. It also emerges from the evidence on record that the appellant with other five persons broke opened the rear door of the house of the first informant, attacked the deceased with deadly weapons causing him fatal injuries and committed dacoity. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the appellant inflicted axe blows on the person of her husband. It also emerges from the evidence on record that the appellant with other five persons broke opened the rear door of the house of the first informant, attacked the deceased with deadly weapons causing him fatal injuries and committed dacoity. The eye-witness has identified the appellant and, therefore, the presence of the appellant is proved by the prosecution. There is no other cross-examination with regard to the incident and the participation of the appellant. The witness was the wife of the deceased and the incident occurred in her house at the midnight and, therefore, looking to the time of the incident, presence of the witness at the place of the incident is quite natural. In view of the fact that despite the cross-examination, the defence has not been able to impeach the credibility of the deposition of the witness, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant. It is true that the witness has not identified the muddamal axe, but that fact would not carry much weight in view of the fact that the eye-witness has categorically stated in her deposition that the appellant was armed with axe and had caused injuries to her deceased husband. 12.1 The evidence of PW. 2 Raising Vechanbhai (Exh.14) also indicates that he saw the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased armed with an axe after the incident. In view of the above evidence, the presence and participation of the appellant in the incident is established beyond reasonable doubt. 13. The FIR (Exh.13) lodged by eye-witness Kapilaben also alleges participation of the appellant in the incident. The allegations made in the FIR are duly proved by the witness in her deposition before the Court. Therefore, the evidence with regard to involvement of the appellant in the incident is consistent. 14. The prosecution has examined Medical officer Mr. Chauvala Chandrasinh Gariya as PW. 10 at Exh.31, to prove the injuries caused to the deceased and the cause of death of deceased Bhudarbhai. According to this witness, injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the injuries were possible by a sharp edged weapon. The post-mortem report produced at Exh.32 indicates the injuries found on the dead body. According to this witness, injuries caused to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the injuries were possible by a sharp edged weapon. The post-mortem report produced at Exh.32 indicates the injuries found on the dead body. It also indicates that the cause of death is severe intra cranial haemorrhage due to multiple fractures of right temperal bone. This evidence clearly indicates that the death was homicidal in nature. 15. It emerges from the above discussion that the deceased and his wife Kapilaben (PW. 1) were inside their house and the appellant and other accused persons broke opened the rear door of their house, attacked the deceased with deadly weapon causing him fatal injuries and committed dacoity by taking away valuables. The appellant with other accused persons committed dacoity and also committed murder of Bhudarbhai while committing dacoity. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the charges levelled against him. 16. The submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Mankad that the appellant should be awarded lesser punishment of ten years cannot be accepted, as the evidence on record clearly establishes that Bhudarbhai was done to death by inflicting blows with deadly weapons while committing dacoity. The appeal preferred by other convicts against their conviction has been dismissed by the High Court and their sentence of life imprisonment is maintained. Learned Advocate Mr. Mankad has not been able to satisfy this Court for awarding lesser sentence to the appellant. Under the circumstances, this submission cannot be entertained and is hereby rejected. 17. So far as Criminal Appeal No. 484/2006 preferred by the State against the acquittal of original accused No. 1, 2 & 4 in Sessions Case No. 77/2004 recorded by the trial Court is concerned, it may be stated that the learned Judge of the trial Court, on proper appreciation of evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against them. It is pertinent to note that the sole eye-witness Kapilaben (PW. 1, Exh.12), in her cross-examination, has stated that she had nothing to say against the other persons. The FIR (Exh.13) also does not establish involvement of the other accused persons, except the appellant. Thus, there is no evidence to connect the acquitted accused with the offence. It is pertinent to note that the sole eye-witness Kapilaben (PW. 1, Exh.12), in her cross-examination, has stated that she had nothing to say against the other persons. The FIR (Exh.13) also does not establish involvement of the other accused persons, except the appellant. Thus, there is no evidence to connect the acquitted accused with the offence. After all, the appeal preferred by the State is an acquittal appeal. It is well settled principle of law that in acquittal appeal, the Court should be very slow to interfere with the finding arrived at by the trial Court. This Court can certainly alter the judgment of acquittal, provided the finding is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. We are unable to agree with the submission made by learned A.P.P. Mr. Pandya for the State that the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred in acquitting original accused Nos. 1,2 & 4. We have found that the learned Judge has given cogent, convincing and plausible reasons for coming to the conclusion and, therefore, we cannot substitute our own decision by reappreciating the same evidence. When two views are possible, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted while dealing with and hearing of an acquittal appeal. The learned A.P.P has not been able to point out any infirmity in the judgment rendered by the trial Court with regard to acquittal of the other accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted with regard to acquittal of original accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4. 18. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals fail and stand dismissed. The judgment and order dated 5.2.2005 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-4, Bharuch, in Sessions Case No. 77/2004, is hereby confirmed.