JUDGMENT 1. Since both the appeals arise out of judgment dated 26.04.2011 passed by the learned trial court, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The complainant-appellant has filed this appeal under section 372 Criminal Procedure Code challenging the judgment dated 26.04.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Karauli in Sessions Case No.241/2007 whereby acquittal has been awarded to accused respondents for the offences under Sections 147, 427, 395 and 323 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code and section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1986. 3. The initiation of the present criminal proceedings were at the instance of appellant when he submitted a report at police station Karauli on 14.04.200. It was stated in the report that the appellant and his younger brother Rajveer were returning in vehicle No.RJ-02-C-5904 after performing puja of Goddess Kailadevi. Further, it is mentioned that on the road side, a child fell down as he had been struck with a stone. The appellant had stopped the vehicle at that place. Thereafter, the accused Narsi, Gopal and 5-7 other persons came and started beating him as well as his brother. It is alleged that a gold chain was snatched and an amount of Rs.2,500/- was robbed away by the accused persons. They had also broken the glasses of the vehicle and damaged it extensively. 4. On the basis of the said report, the police registered FIR No.217/2007 for the offences under sections 143, 341, 323, 379 and 427 Indian Penal Code. Thereupon the investigation commenced and on conclusion of the same, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the concerning magistrate against the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 5, for the offences under sections 395, 341 and 427 Indian Penal Code. 5. The trial commenced with framing of charges against the accused respondents for the offences under sections 147, 427, 323 read with section 149 and 395 Indian Penal Code as well as section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Area Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. 5. The trial commenced with framing of charges against the accused respondents for the offences under sections 147, 427, 323 read with section 149 and 395 Indian Penal Code as well as section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Area Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution had, in support of its case, produced 10 witnesses and filed 15 documents collected during the course of investigation which were duly exhibited at the learned trial court.Subsequently, on conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code wherein they had pleaded that the case of the prosecution is false and they have not committed an offence. In support of defence version, the accused produced and got examined one Narsi (DW1). After completion of trial and on hearing both the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents from all the charges levelled against them, vide its judgment dated 26.04.2011. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by she complainant which has been finally heard by us. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued, with all vehemence, that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and without proper consideration of the material on record. Therefore, it has been submitted that the said judgment be quashed and set aside and the accused respondent Nos.2 to 5 he convicted for the charges levelled against them. In the alternative, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case may he remanded to the learned trial court for its decision afresh. Further, he has submitted that from the ocular as well as ddcumentary evidence on record. produced by prosecution, it is well proved that it was the accused respondents who had given heating to the complainant party and had robbed them of the gold chain and cash, after damaging their vehicle. lie has submitted that the learned trial court has held, on irrelevant consideration, that the prosecution has failed to pros e its case. Such a finding of the trial court is without any basis. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the investigating agency had duly recovered the articles stolen and the same were proved before the learned trial court by the investigating officer as well as the mothirs. Such a finding of the trial court is without any basis. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the investigating agency had duly recovered the articles stolen and the same were proved before the learned trial court by the investigating officer as well as the mothirs. Therefore, he has submitted that there was no reason for the learned trial court to have become suspicious of the prosecution case and acquitted the accused respondents.It has also been submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the learned trial court has doubted the statements of the prosecution witnesses only for petty reasons and that the identification of accused as well as the articles recovered had not been made. According to him, such considerations could not have cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case and the learned trial court ought to have considered the substantive piece of evidence produced by the prosecution. The learned trial court has altogether ignored the evidence on record by which the recovery of the articles has been duly proved. On the aforesaid premise, the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is erroneous and the same be quashed and set aside and the accused respondents deserve to be awarded conviction and sentence, for the offences alleged. 7. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and have carefully perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court on 26.04.2011. 8. A bare perusal of the judgment passed by the learned court below reveals that a thorough consideration has been made on every and each facts and circumstances of the case and the entire evidence produced by the prosecution before it. The learned trial court has gone into detail of all the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant Rajesh Kumar Meena (PW3); the brother of the complainant Rajveer (PW4); the eye witness Lajja Ram (PW8) and a resident of nearby village where the incident had taken placehamely Sardar (PW 1). Similarly, learned trial court has extensively considered the statement of Vijay Singh (PW7), the investigating officer. After considering the ocular evidence produced before it by the prosecution. Similarly, learned trial court has extensively considered the statement of Vijay Singh (PW7), the investigating officer. After considering the ocular evidence produced before it by the prosecution. particularly aforesaid material witnesses, the learned trial court had arrived to a conclusion and rightly so, that there were serious and material contradictions in the statements of the complainant, his brother and other important prosecution witnesses which certainly cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. It is noteworthy that Sardar (PW1) the only witness belonging to the village situated near to the place of incident, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. 9. Another important aspect of the prosecution case which has been considered by the learned trial court was with regard to the manner in which the incident had taken place. On perusal for the statement of the prosecution witnesses it is revealed that the version given by each of them in respect of maarpeet, robbing away of articles and damage caused to the car are totally different and there is no coherence between them so much so that there are material contradictions between the statements of the complainant Rajesh (PW3) and his younger brother Rajveer (PW4). Further more, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the total number of assailants present at the time of incident and their participation in the alleged offences. It is significant to note that no test identification parade of the accused persons was ever conducted by the investigating agency whereas un-disputedly the accused persons were not known to the complainant party from before. 10. Learned trial court has also considered yet another important aspect of the prosecution case that articles recovered during the course of investigation have not been proved during trial, in accordance to law. Learned trial court has discussed every and each evidence on record in this respect and only thereafter it has held that the same is not above suspicion. 11. Learned trial court has also considered yet another important aspect of the prosecution case that articles recovered during the course of investigation have not been proved during trial, in accordance to law. Learned trial court has discussed every and each evidence on record in this respect and only thereafter it has held that the same is not above suspicion. 11. Therefore, the learned trial court, after thorough and proper consideration of the evidence on record which has been discussed in detail, had rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the accused respondents had given beating to the complainant party on 14.04.2007 and that in furtherance of their common object, the accused had committed the alleged offences by causing damage to the vehicle, robbing the complainant of the gold chain as well as an amount of Rs.2,500/- and had given beating to them. Similarly, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused respondents had committed any offence in the dacoity affected area. 12. As aforesaid the learned trial court had, after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution, given its finding that the accused respondents are entitled to benefit of doubt because the prosecution has failed to prove its case in accordance to law. The details of evidence referred to and considered by the learned trial court leave no room for interference by this court in is appellate jurisdiction. Needless to say that even if two views are possible then the appellate court is not to substitute it view in place of the one taken by the learned trial court. The principle of law in this regard is well settled. An appellate court is to interfere with an order of acquittal only for special reasons.There is plethora of case law on the subject but we consider it appropriate to quote a few decisions which would show that the said principle is well established since the case of Sheo Swarup and others v. King Emperor AIR 1934 Privy Council 227 , wherein it had been held as under: 'Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should he reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of tire accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this however is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice.'The said principle has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tulsiram Kanu v. The State- AIR 1954 SC 1 . in paragraph 4 as under: 4. Before proceeding to examine the reasons for the High Court's conclusion, we think it necessary to point out that in an appeal against an order of acquittal on a charge of murder, under section 417, Criminal Procedure Code while the appeal Court has full powers to review the whole case, the Court must start with the realisation that an experienced judicial officer (with four assessors) had concluded that there was clearly reasonable doubt in respect of the guilt of he accused oil the evidence put before the Court. It, therefore, requires good and sufficiently cogent reasons to over come such reasonable doubt before the appeal Court comes to a different conclusion. 13. In the last and without multiplying the case law on the point, the case of Tota Singh &Anr. v. State of Punjab 1987(2) SCC 529 , it has been observed in paragraph 6 of the judgment, as follows: "6. The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW-2 and PW-6 were either unreasonable or perverse. v. State of Punjab 1987(2) SCC 529 , it has been observed in paragraph 6 of the judgment, as follows: "6. The High Court has not found in its judgment that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the testimony of PW-2 and PW-6 were either unreasonable or perverse. What the High Court has done is to make an independent reappraisal of the evidence on its own and to set aside he acquittal merely on the ground that as a result of such re appreciation, the High Court was inclined to reach a conclusion different from the one recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that he mere fact that the Appellate Court is inclined on a re-appreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance with the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid and sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the Appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of tire evidence is erroneous." 14. Consequently, the appeal filed by the complainant appellant as well as leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan have no merit and they are hereby dismissed. *******