JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. This is an appeal, preferred by the State of Meghalaya, against the judgment and order, dated 31.03.2009, passed, in Case No. FTC (S) 06/2006, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, acquitting the two accused-respondents, Daniel Shabong and Kedian Shabong, of the charges framed against them under Sections 449 and 302 IPC. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as under: (i) Following a theft, which had been committed at the biscuit factory of the present respondents at Laitlyngkut, a case was registered, one Phiren Khongsti (since deceased) was granted anticipatory bail by order, dated 09.09.93, in Criminal Misc Case No. 39(A)/93, by the learned District Magistrate, East Khasi Hills, Shillong. As the said Phiren Khongsti was apprehending threat to his life, his elder sister, Smt. Danu Khongsti (PW 5), gave an information to the Officer-in-Charge, Shillong Police Station, to the effect that following the said theft, her younger brother, Phiren Khongsti, was suspected to be involved in the said theft and some elements, at Laitlyngkut, had been threatening to kill him, though he was on anticipatory bail. (ii) On 06.10.93, at about 8.30 pm, when Phiren Khongsti was at home, the two accused-respondents came to his house, armed with hammer and stick, and despite resistance offered by PW 5, wife of the said deceased, and PW 7, younger brother of the said deceased, the two accused-respondents, along with some others, dragged Phiren to the road, which was barely at a distance of about 100 feet from the house of Phiren and assaulted and tortured him there. On the following day, i.e., on 07.10.93, at about 7.00 am, police personnel found Phiren Khongsti lying injured by the side of the road. In the presence of the police, the said injured succumbed to his injuries, whereupon the Officer-in-Charge, Shillong Police Station, who had seen the dead body, held inquest on the said dead body and, having prepared the inquest report, he sent the said dead body to the hospital for post mortem examination. In the presence of the police, the said injured succumbed to his injuries, whereupon the Officer-in-Charge, Shillong Police Station, who had seen the dead body, held inquest on the said dead body and, having prepared the inquest report, he sent the said dead body to the hospital for post mortem examination. (iii) On the night of the occurrence itself, i.e., on 06.10.93, PW 7, younger brother of the said deceased, came to his mother's house and informed her about the occurrence, whereupon his mother informed her daughter (PW 5), who, in turn, lodged a written information with the police, at Pynsursla Police Station, on 08.10.93. Based on this written information, which was treated as First Information Report (in short, FIR), Pynsursla Police Station Case No. 14/1993, under Sections 449 and 302 IPC, was registered against the present two accused-respondents and, on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, under the said penal provisions, against the present two accused-respondents. 2. During trial, when charges, under Sections 449 and 302 IPC, were framed, both the accused-respondents pleaded not guilty thereto. 3. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses. The accused-respondents were, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in their examinations aforementioned, while they denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by them, their further case was that Phiren (i.e., the deceased) was attacked by mob and was killed near his house and, hence, it was a case of mob violence and the present respondents were not responsible for the death of Phiren. In support of their case, defence, too, examined as many as six witnesses. 4. At the end of the trial, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, dated 31.03.2009, acquitted both the accused-respondents of the charges framed against them under Section 449 and Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by their acquittal, the State of Meghalaya has preferred this appeal. 5. We may point out that even the sister of the said deceased has filed a revision, but as the State has preferred the appeal, the revision is not maintainable and is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved by their acquittal, the State of Meghalaya has preferred this appeal. 5. We may point out that even the sister of the said deceased has filed a revision, but as the State has preferred the appeal, the revision is not maintainable and is, therefore, disposed of accordingly. We may also point out that when an acquittal takes place in a case, which has been investigated by the police, and the State does not prefer any appeal, the informant or the aggrieved party cannot be left without a remedy and since there is no provision for appeal for such an aggrieved party, the revision can be filed and, in the revision, though the revisional Court cannot convert the finding of acquittal into a finding of guilt, yet the revisional Court, if satisfied, that the finding is per verse or irrational or wholly against the evidence on record or not in accordance with law, it may, in an appropriate case, remand the case to the learned trial Court by setting aside the judgment of acquittal and pointing out the deficiencies with which the judgment of the trial Court may be suffering from. 6. We have heard Mr. H.R. Nath, learned Public Prosecutor, Meghalaya, for the appellants, and Mr. H. Kharmih, learned counsel, for the revision-petitioner. We have also heard Mr. P. Dey, learned counsel, for the accused-respondents. 7. Since the thrust of the prosecution's argument is that the accused-respondents were the ones, who had killed Phiren and their case, principally, rests on the evidence of PW 5, PW 6, PW 7 and PW 10, let us, first, take note of the evidence of these four witnesses. 8. According to the evidence of PW 5, widow of the said deceased, on 06.10.1993, when her husband, her minor children, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law (PW 7) were all present at home, the two accused-respondents came to their house at about 8-8.30 pm and dragged her husband, Phiren, outside and though she (PW 5) tried to stop the two accused-respondents from dragging her husband, the accused-respondent, Kedien, pulled her ear and threw her away and she became unconscious and when she regained her senses after about three hours, she did not see anything. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that on regaining her senses, she tried several times to get up, but fell down and, hence, she went off to sleep on her bed. It is also in the evidence of PW 5 that on the following day, at about 8 am, she heard that her husband had expired. 9. Broadly in tune with the evidence of PW 5, PW 6, younger brother of the said deceased, has deposed that on 06.10.93, he happened to be present at the house of his brother, Phiren, and, at about 8 pm on that day, the two accused-respondents entered into his brother's house by forcibly opening the door and dragged him out of the house and when he (PW 6) asked the accused persons not to drag his brother, accused Kedian asked him to shut up. It is in the evidence of PW 6 that since accused Kedian was armed with hammer and accused Daniel was armed with stick and they had threatened him, he became scared and he, then, went to his mother's house, at Mawlong, and reported the incident to his mother, whereupon his mother, accompanied by his sister, Bintu, went to the house of the deceased, but he (PW 6) did not accompany them, because he was scared and, on the following day, he received information that his said brother had died. 10. What is, now, important to note is that in her cross-examination, PW 5 has admitted that she was informed by one child from the village regarding the demise of her husband, but she remained in her house and did not go to see the dead body. It is her evidence, in cross-examination, that the two accused are her relatives and were known to her. It is the further evidence of PW 5 that the accused were visitors to her house in connection with business. 11. What is also important to note, in the evidence of PW 5, is that according to her, PW 6 tried to raise hue and cry for help, but could not do so. As against the evidence, so given by PW 5, that PW 6 tried to raise hue and cry, PW 6 claims that he did raise hue and cry to get assistance from his neighbours, but nobody came. As against the evidence, so given by PW 5, that PW 6 tried to raise hue and cry, PW 6 claims that he did raise hue and cry to get assistance from his neighbours, but nobody came. It is also in his evidence that the houses, in the neighbourhood, are very close and if anyone shouts, the neighbours could hear the shout. 12. From the cross-examination of PW 6, it has also surfaced that he came to see his brother on the following day in the morning and went to his mother's house too. Despite this, no information was given to the police by PW 6 that the two accused-respondents were the ones, who had dragged his brother, Phiren, on the night of the occurrence. 13. What, thus, clearly transpires from the evidence of PW 5 and PW 6 is that none of these two persons informed, even on the following day, anyone including the police about the occurrence nor these two persons revealed to the police or to their neighbours or any outsider the names of the two accused-respondents as the assailants of Phiren. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW 7, elder sister of the said deceased, we notice that her evidence is that on the day of the occurrence, she was at Shillong and she was reported about the occurrence by her brother, Agen Khongsti, (who, it may be noted, has not been examined by the prosecution), whereupon she went to Laitlyngkot and reported the incident to the Officer-in-Charge, Pynursla by lodging Exhibit 1, which bears her signature. 15. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that her deceased brother had been threatened by the accused persons and as an elder sister, she had reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Pynursla, on 20.09.2009, Ext. 2 being the said information. 16. 15. It is in the evidence of PW 7 that her deceased brother had been threatened by the accused persons and as an elder sister, she had reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Pynursla, on 20.09.2009, Ext. 2 being the said information. 16. Though PW 2 has boldly stated, in her evidence, that the two accused-respondents were the ones, who had threatened the said deceased, curiously enough, the information, which had been given to the police seeking police protection by PW 7 for her brother, Phiren, did not disclose the names of the two accused-respondents as the ones, who had threatened Phiren nor did the information, so given by PW 7, reveal that Phiren had received threats to the life from the end of the present accused-respondents; the information, given by PW 7 to the police, rather, states that Phiren had been threatened by some miscreants. If the names of the miscreants had been known, then, why their names had not been revealed to the police by PW 7 remains a mystery and is not answered. 17. Thus, the omission to mention the names coupled with the belated disclosure of the names of the two accused-respondents to the police as the persons, who had dragged the said deceased from his house, on the night of 06.10.93, make it highly unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7, particularly, when neither PW 5 nor PW 6 informed anyone even after they became aware of the death of the said deceased that on the previous night, the two accused-respondents had dragged the said deceased out of his house. In fact, the evidence on record is wholly silent as to why PW 5 and/or PW 6 never ever reported to anyone about the occurrence, which had taken place on the night of 06.10.93. Even the mother of PW 6 has not been examined by the prosecution nor Agen Khongsti, who, as claimed by PW 7, had reported the occurrence to her. These are the glaringly noticeable features, which make it wholly unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of PW 5 and PW 6, who claimed to be the eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. 18. Coming to the evidence of PW 10, it needs to be noted that this witness has never reported the occurrence to the police. These are the glaringly noticeable features, which make it wholly unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of PW 5 and PW 6, who claimed to be the eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence. 18. Coming to the evidence of PW 10, it needs to be noted that this witness has never reported the occurrence to the police. Neither this witness (PW 10) nor anyone else ever revealed to the police that he (PW 10) was an eye witness to the occurrence. However, this witness was examined by the prosecution, for the first time, at the trial, on 30.11.1999, i.e., more than six years after the incident. This witness claims that on 07.09.93, at about 8.30 pm, while he was at the veranda of the godown of his brother, who had gone to bazaar, he saw the two accused-respondents killing Phiren inasmuch as he saw, under the street-light, the two accused persons giving blows with a hammer on Phiren and that they had tied the deceased to the lamp post and were questioning him. It is also in the evidence of PW 10 that the accused, then, untied the deceased, they made him lie down on the road and, then, they beat him up and, thereafter, his brother returned and he (PW 10) went back home. PW 10 has clarified that he was standing at the veranda of the godown of his brother, when he happened to witness the occurrence. 19. Apart from the fact that PW 10 has admitted, in his cross-examination by defence, that he is friendly with the family of the deceased, he also admits that he has come to the Court at the instance of the family of the deceased. When did PW 10 report to the members of the family of the deceased that he had seen the occurrence is, again, a mystery. According to him, he was standing at the veranda of the godown of his brother and the place of occurrence was below the veranda. This witness, too, claims that he had not raised any alarm as he was scared and that out of fear, neither he nor his brother went to the police. How and when did they inform the family members of the deceased remains shrouded in mystery. This witness, too, claims that he had not raised any alarm as he was scared and that out of fear, neither he nor his brother went to the police. How and when did they inform the family members of the deceased remains shrouded in mystery. Thus, though PW 10 is a witness, who claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence, yet what cannot be ignored is that the prosecution have not disclosed as to how and when it came to be known to the family of the deceased and/or the prosecution that PW 10 was an eye witness to the occurrence. In the face of these undisclosed facts, it is too unsafe to place reliance on the evidence of such an witness. 20. Let us, now, turn to the other witnesses of the prosecution. As far as PW 1 is concerned, his evidence is to the effect, inter alia, that on 06.10.1993, at about 8 am, he saw a group of people gathered near the bus station and police were also there and he (PW 1) noticed that police were watching one person, who was injured and lying by the side of the road. PW 1, then, went to the said place and found police offering water to the injured and, later on, the injured, Phiren Khongsti, who was known to him, died and he was the one, who had identified the dead body to the police, the police held inquest over the said dead body and, then, sent the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Shillong, for post mortem examination. In his cross-examination, PW 1 has clarified that the date of occurrence was 06.10.93. 21. As far as PW 2 is concerned, his evidence is that on 06.10.93, he was at home and at about 8.15 am, when he was passing through the place of occurrence, on the way to Shillong, he saw police checking the dead body, he stopped there and at the time, when he reached the said place, he found Phiren Khongsti was lying dead. PW 2, too, was a witness to the inquest, which was held over the said dead body. PW 2 has also deposed that he does not know as to who was behind the killing of Phiren Khongsti. 22. PW 2, too, was a witness to the inquest, which was held over the said dead body. PW 2 has also deposed that he does not know as to who was behind the killing of Phiren Khongsti. 22. Coming to the evidence of PW 3, we notice that his evidence is that on the night of the occurrence, i.e., on 06.10.93, he was at the cremation ground, because one of his relatives had expired and, on 07.10.1993, at about 8.15-8.30 am, when he was going to the school, he happened to pass by the side of the road and he found police having gathered around the dead body of Phiren Khongsti and that he had put his signature on the inquest report, which the police had prepared. 23. Similarly, PW 4 has deposed that on 06.10.1993, he was working from 4 pm to 9 pm at the Catholic Mission Compound and was not aware of the incident and that he came back to his house, at Sawlad, at around 9-9.30 pm and, on the following day, he saw a dead body lying on the roadside at Sawlad and many people, along with police, had gathered around the dead body. 24. From the evidence of PW 1 to PW 4, what surfaces is that all of them had seen the dead body of Phiren Khongsti lying on the road and police were present there. How police came to the place is not revealed by the prosecution. At any rate, PW 1 to PW 4 do not implicate the accused-respondents in the occurrence in which the deceased was injured and, eventually, died. 25. At the same time, and as already indicated above, the evidence of PW 5 (widow of the said deceased) and PW 6 (younger brother of the said deceased), who have claimed to be the eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence, suffer from, as already indicated above, inherently irreconcilable assertions and, in these circumstances, any of these two witnesses, namely, PW 5 and PW 6, can be believed and if they are not believed, the evidence of PW 7 (elder sister of the said deceased) cannot be taken to have improved the case of the prosecution. As far as PW 10 is concerned, his evidence, we have already discussed above, as wholly unreliable. 26. As far as PW 10 is concerned, his evidence, we have already discussed above, as wholly unreliable. 26. What emerges from the above discussion is that there is no credible, convincing, trustworthy and reliable evidence on record enabling the Court to hold, boldly and confidently, that the accused-respondents were the ones, who had injured and caused death of Phiren. 27. A reference may be made to the case of Bava Hajee Hamsa Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 4 SCC 479 , wherein the Supreme Court, referring to the case of Bhim Singh Rup Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 762 , observed, with regard to the scope of power of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal, in the following words: The age-old controversy with regard to the width and scope of the powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal must be taken as settled by the decision of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan. It was held therein that the appellate Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and that the different phrases used in some of the judgments of this Court like 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficiently cogent reasons', and 'strong reasons', were not intended to curtail the undoubted power of the appellate Court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion in an appeal against acquittal. It was, however, emphasised that in exercising this power the appellate Court, while dealing with an order of acquittal, should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal but it must express its reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. Following this decision, this Court in Ramaphupala Reddy v. State of A.P. held that to the tests laid down in Sanwat Singh case may be added another that the appellate Court must bear in mind the fact that the trial Court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal. Therefore, 'if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the trial Court.' 28. From the observations, made in Bhim Singh Rup Singh (supra) and Bava Hajee Hamsa (supra), what becomes clear is that while an appellate Court has the full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, there is an inherent limitation on the appellate Court's power to interfere with the order of acquittal inasmuch as the appellate Court must give due weight and importance to every reason, which may have been assigned by the trial Court in support of its order of acquittal and the appellate Court must assign cogent reasons should the appellate Court come to a contrary conclusion that the acquittal was not justified and, in this regard, the appellate Court has to also bear in mind the fact that the trial Court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal. This apart, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached, on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court must not disturb the findings of acquittal of the trial Court. 29. In the case at hand, the learned trial Court has assigned convincing reasons for coming to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-respondents. We have marshalled the entire evidence on record and we do not see that the conclusions, which the learned trial Court reached, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the findings of acquittal, which have been reached by the learned trial Court, in respect of the accused-respondents. 30. Situated thus, we hold that the present appeal is wholly without merit and must, therefore, fail. 31. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 32. With the above observations and directions, this appeal and the revision shall stand disposed of. Send back the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order. Appeal dismissed