Judgment : By this appeal, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao in Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A, acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 452 read with 34 IPC. The respondents were accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in Private Criminal Case No. 42/P/97/A. 2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 28.1.1997, at about 9.00 a.m. all the accused entered into his tailoring institute “Remedios Tailoring Institute” at Kharband road, Margao, thereby trespassing into the premises of the complainant and started abusing the complainant. Accused No.4 Agnel Pontes who was armed with danda, assaulted the complainant on his back. Thereafter, accused No.1 Dorothy Siqueira snatched danda from accused No.4 and gave blow on the head of the complainant, due to which the complainant started bleeding profusely. Thereafter, all the accused started assaulting the complainant with fist blows. All the accused also threatened the complaint to kill. In the meantime, a neighbour of the complainant informed the police and thereafter, the complainant was taken by the police to the Police Station profusely bleeding. He was referred by the police to the Hospicio Hospital, where he was under treatment for 7 days. He was also referred to Goa Medical College, Bambolim for further check-up due to head injury. The complainant was discharged on 4.2.97. Thereafter, he went to the police station and lodged report dated 5.2.97 at Margao Police Station which was not registered at the Morgao Town Police Station and as such, the complainant was compelled to file the private complaint. The complainant filed a complaint in February, 1997, against five accused alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 506(ii), read with 34 IPC. 3. After filing of the complaint, upon verification, the learned Magistrate issued process against all the five accused under Sections 323, 452, 506(ii), read with 34 IPC. 4. The complainant examined three witnesses, namely the complainant himself as PW.1, PW.2 Maria Ida Jones, and PW. 3 Mrs. Else Crasto, wife of the complainant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate framed Charges under Sections 323, 452, read with 34 IPC only against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and discharged accused nos. 2 and 5. 5. After the charge, three witnesses examined by the complainant were cross examined further by the accused. 3 Mrs. Else Crasto, wife of the complainant. The Chief Judicial Magistrate framed Charges under Sections 323, 452, read with 34 IPC only against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and discharged accused nos. 2 and 5. 5. After the charge, three witnesses examined by the complainant were cross examined further by the accused. The complainant examined one more witness, viz. PW.4 Dr. Sanjeev Dalvi. 6. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication. The accused did not lead any evidence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the impugned Judgment and Order, acquitted the respondents-accused of the offences for which they were charged. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused primarily on the following grounds: (I) There were discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the complainant; (II) There was motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused; (III) No independent witness was examined by the complainant; (IV) The weapon i.e. danda was not produced during the course of trial. 7. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of acquittal primarily, on the following grounds: (I) The findings recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are perverse; (II) The complaint had proved his case by leading cogent evidence and more particularly his evidence which was corroborated by the medical evidence tendered through PW.4 Dr. Sanjev Dalvi; (III) Defence of the accused was not established by the accused and on the contrary, the complainant had established the motive for the commission of the offences by the accused; (IV) Finding of acquittal given by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that the danda was not produced is patently unsustainable in law; (V) The complainant had proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt, having regard to probabilities involved in the matter. Mr. Usgaonkar, to buttress his submissions, took me through the evidence led by the complainant creates doubt about the case of the complainant. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mr. Usgaonkar, to buttress his submissions, took me through the evidence led by the complainant creates doubt about the case of the complainant. 8. Per contra, Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the respondents-accused, at the outset, submitted that the appeal being against acquittal, there are inherent limitations for interference by this Court, as has been held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions and further supported the impugned Judgment and Order, inter ilia, on the following grounds: (I) There are material variations in the testimonies of the complainant's witnesses, as has been rightly held by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate; (II) The complainant had not referred to the presence of other witnesses, either in his complaint or in his deposition before the Court. (III) Independent witnesses, more particularly the six students who were, admittedly, present in the institution, were not examined by the complainant, without any cogent reason. (IV) The FIR which must have been registered at the Police Station on 28.1.1997, had not been produced inasmuch as it is the case of the complainant himself that he was taken by the police after the assault, to the police station and thereafter referred to the Hospicio Hospital; (V) Non-examination of the Police Officer who had come to the site and taken the complainant to the police station after the alleged incident creates doubt about the case of the complainant. (VI) Non-production of the best evidence by the complainant. 9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 10. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the evidence of the complainant PW.1 Remedios Crasto who deposed that he was running a tailoring institute by name “Remedio Tailoring Institute” at Khareband, Margao and he knew all the accused. He claimed that on 28.1.1997, at 9.00 a.m. all the accused came inside the premises and assaulted him. Accused No.4 assaulted him with a danda on his back, whereupon he fell on the ground. Thereafter, accused No.1 snatched the danda from the hands of accused No.4 and gave a blow on his head, due to which he started bleeding. He further claimed that inspite of bleeding, all the accused started assaulting him with fist blows. All the accused also threatened to kill him. He further claimed that accused No.4 threatened him that he would kill him by putting him under his pickup. He further claimed that inspite of bleeding, all the accused started assaulting him with fist blows. All the accused also threatened to kill him. He further claimed that accused No.4 threatened him that he would kill him by putting him under his pickup. In the meantime, he claimed that one of his neighbours informed the police and the police took him to the police station and thereafter he was referred to Hospicio Hospital, where he was treated for seven days. He was also referred to Goa Medical College Hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on 4.2.1997. He claimed that after discharge from the hospital, he went to the police station to inquire, but he found that the police had not taken any action against the accused and on the contrary, the police were interested in arresting the complainant. He, therefore, applied for anticipatory bail. He claimed that he lodged report before the police, but no action was taken. He produced a copy of the report Exhibit PW.1/A , alleged to have been lodged by him at the police station and he identified his signature on the same. He also produced discharge card Exhibit PW.1/B. In the cross examination he claimed that he knew all the accused before the incident. He knew accused Nos. 1 and 3 as they were his wife's neighbours. He stated that he did not know why he was assaulted by the accused and further claimed that they were not his enemies prior to the incident. Thereafter, he clarified that all the accused were in enemical terms even prior to the incident. He further stated that accused No.1 had requested him to verify whether her land conversion had been done at Panaji and when he had gone to Panaji to verify the same, the authorities requested him to bring the power of attorney of accused No.1. Accused No.1 did not pay any amount to do the work and as such, accused No.1 became his enemy because he demanded money for the expenses to do the work. He further claimed that accused No.2 was not known to him prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that accused had given money to him to do the land conversion of her land and he had failed to do the same. He further claimed that accused No.2 was not known to him prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that accused had given money to him to do the land conversion of her land and he had failed to do the same. He further stated that at the time of the incident, besides his wife, there were six students aged between 16 to 17 years, but he did not know their names. He claimed that there was a big crowd outside the shop. He stated that there was no discussion between him and the accused prior to the assault. The students ran away and the outsiders did not come inside, nor his wife came to his rescue. He further claimed that all the accused gave on him fist blows. He claimed that when the police came, all the accused ran away. He denied the suggestion that he had taken money from the people promising them conversion of lands, and claimed ignorance and stated that he did not know why the offence was registered against him. He denied the suggestion that no incident took place and that he was not assaulted on 28.1.1997. He further stated that there was no incident between him and Agnel in respect of his first wife or his second wife. He admitted that between him and Agnelo there was no enmity. He stated that he did not inform the police that accused No.4 had assaulted him. He denied the suggestion that on 28.1.97 accused No.4 was not present at Khareband at 9.00 a.m. He also denied the suggestion that a false complaint was lodged against accused No.4. He also denied the suggestion that he was not hit with danda. He stated that all the students were inside the shop when the entire incident took place. 11. PW.2 Maria Ida Jones stated that she knew the complainant who had a tailoring shop at Khareband. She had gone to Khareband on 20.1.1997. Upon hearing commotion, she came and saw the complainant fallen and was bleeding. She saw the complainant coming out. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were hitting the complainant with slippers outside the shop. There were three more persons. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were standing outside. She also heard the accused saying that they would kill the complainant. Upon hearing commotion, she came and saw the complainant fallen and was bleeding. She saw the complainant coming out. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were hitting the complainant with slippers outside the shop. There were three more persons. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were standing outside. She also heard the accused saying that they would kill the complainant. In cross examination she deposed that the walking distance between the shop and the incident took place was 15 minutes. She did not come by bus. She further stated that there were about 25 to 30 people at the spot from the surrounding shops. She further deposed that the incident took place at 9 a.m. She denied the suggestions that none of the accused assaulted the complainant with slippers nor that they threatened the complainant that they would kill him. She admitted that she had never gone to the shop of the complainant to stitch clothes earlier. She denied the suggestion that because she was customer of the complainant she deposed falsely. 12. PW.3 Mrs. Else Crasto, wife of the complainant deposed that the complainant was her husband. She knew all the accused. On 20.1.1997 at about 9 a.m. all the four accused came inside and hit her husband. Agnelo came and hit a danda on the back of her husband. She claimed that the same danda was taken by accused No.1 and he gave a blow on the head of the complainant. Her husband fell down and thereafter, all the accused started kicking and assaulting her husband and started threatening to kill him. Her husband was bleeding due to the assault on him by the danda. The accused did not allow her and the complainant from going out. Thereafter, upon the complaint of one of the neighbours, police came to the spot and took the complainant to Hospicio Hospital. In cross examination, she stated that it was Agnelo who came first, followed by others. She claimed that when the accused started assaulting her husband, she went to rescue him and separated him from the accused. There was no discussion between the accused and her husband prior to the assault. She claimed that it was accused No.1 who did not allow her to go out. She claimed that she had seen accused No.1 for the first time on the day of the incident. There was no discussion between the accused and her husband prior to the assault. She claimed that it was accused No.1 who did not allow her to go out. She claimed that she had seen accused No.1 for the first time on the day of the incident. She further deposed that her husband was not doing any work of land conversion of the people. She admitted that her husband had obtained anticipatory bail from District Court after that incident as the police were looking out for him. She denied the suggestion that the anticipatory bail was taken as accused No.1 had filed a complaint to Margao Police Station that the complainant had taken Rs.85,000/-to do the land conversion, but he did not do the same and, as such, the police were looking out for him. She further claimed that she knew PW. 2 who had entered into the institute on the day of the incident. At that time, all the accused were inside the house. She further claimed that PW.2 tried to separate the accused from hitting the husband. She denied the suggestion that PW.2 was not present on that day, nor did she enter the institute, nor she tried to separate the accused and her husband. She denied the suggestion made by the accused to the effect that the accused had not assaulted the complainant. In further cross examination, she denied the suggestion that she was not present in the shop or that her husband was not assaulted. In further cross examination by accused No.4, she stated that her husband had not sustained any bleeding injury. 13. PW.4 Dr. Sanjev Dalvi deposed that on 28.1.1997 he had examined the complainant at Hospicio Hospital. He identified his signature on the medical certificate Exhibit C-78. The certificate discloses that the injuries were CLW and abrasion. In cross examination, he admitted that the injuries could be caused if a person falls on hard and blunt surface. 14. Upon a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the complainant, it is noticed that there are a number of inter se variations and contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the complainant. The complainant claimed that on account of the assault, he had suffered bleeding injuries. PW.3, though initially claimed that the complainant had bleeding injuries, thereafter stated that the complainant did not have any bleeding injury. The complainant claimed that on account of the assault, he had suffered bleeding injuries. PW.3, though initially claimed that the complainant had bleeding injuries, thereafter stated that the complainant did not have any bleeding injury. The complainant claimed that he knew accused Nos.1 and 3 since they were neighbours of his wife; whereas, PW.3 wife of the complainant deposed that she had seen accused No.1 for the first time. The complainant claimed that the accused had inflicted fist blows, but he did not make any reference to kicking by the accused; whereas PW.3 stated about kicking by the accused. The Complainant asserted that his wife had not come to his rescue, whereas it is claimed by PW.3, wife of the complainant that she had gone to the rescue of the complainant and to separate the complainant from the accused. PW.3 even went to the extent of stating that PW.2 had entered the institute and tried to separate the accused and the complainant. This is not the case either of the complainant PW.1 or PW.2. Moreover, the complainant had claimed that after the incident he was taken to the police station and thereafter to the Hospicio Hospital. Obviously therefore, it follows that the police must have registered some FIR. The same has not been produced. Neither the policeman who took the complainant to the Hospicio Hospital has been examined. He would have been a very material witness who would have corroborated the case of the complainant. 15. It is the case of the complainant that 6 to 7 students were present in the institute at the time of the incident. No reason has been given for non-examination of atleast one of them. No doubt, it is not the law that in every criminal case an independent witness has to be examined. But considering the inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant's witnesses to which I have made reference hereinabove, non-examination of any independent witness weakens the complainant's case. Moreover, the defence taken by the accused that the complainant had a motive to falsely implicate the accused, cannot be ruled out, in view of the fact that the complainant himself admitted that he had sought anticipatory bail in respect of the FIR lodged by accused No.1. The evidence led by the complainant PW.1 no doubt is supported by PW.4 Dr. The evidence led by the complainant PW.1 no doubt is supported by PW.4 Dr. Sanjev Dalvi who has proved that there were injuries on the complainant when he was examined by him on 28.1.1997 in morning at Hospicio Hospital. But this fact, by itself, is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. 16. This is an appeal against Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Apex Court in the case of Chandrappav. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ), in paragraph 42, has observed thus: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence led by the complainant, in my opinion, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are reasonable and possible. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence led by the complainant, in my opinion, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate are reasonable and possible. The reliance placed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the fact that the danda which was used in the commission of office was not produced cannot be sustained inasmuch as in a private criminal case it cannot be expected of the complainant to produce a weapon used by the accused unless the same is left at the scene of offence. However, other reasons given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for acquitting the accused cannot be faulted 18. Applying the well settled principles governing interference by Appellate Courts against Judgments and orders acquitting the accused, as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappav. State of Karnataka (supra), I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is possible view and cannot be said to be totally unreasonable. 19. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any fault with the impugned Judgment and Order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds executed by the respondents-accused shall stand discharged. 20. Criminal appeal stands disposed of.