JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The State is the appellant. The respondents are the accused in S.C. No. 116 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC. No. I, Tirunelveli. There were six charges framed as detailed below: Respondents/Accused Charged under Section(s) A-1 147, 341, 302 IPC A-2 148, 341,302 IPC A-3 148, 341,302 IPC A-4 147, 341, 302 read with 114 IPC A-5 147, 341, 302 read with 109 IPC The trial Court by judgment dated 27.1.2005 acquitted all the accused. Challenging the same, the State has come up with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr.Thangaraj. P.W.1 is his father. P.W.2 is his brother-in-law and P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. The fourth respondent/fourth accused Kumar had a wife by name Mallika. Some time before the alleged occurrence, the deceased Thangaraj had eloped with Mallika. A4, therefore, made a complaint to the police against the deceased. On the said complaint, when the Inspector of Police enquired the deceased, Thangaraj told that he would live only with Mallika. Mallika, in turn, told that she was also willing to live only with deceased Thangaraj. As a matter of fact, she also told that the second child to her was born to the deceased. Since the deceased and the wife of the fourth accused expressed their willingness only to live together, the police closed the enquiry and sent them together. From that time onwards, the deceased and Mallika were residing at Madhapuram village near Kadayam. After some time, P.W.1 with the help of a few mediators, went to the place, where the deceased was residing with Mallika, persuaded Mallika to return to the matrimonial home with the fourth accused. Accordingly, Mallika was taken back into the matrimonial home of A4. The deceased was already married. He along with his wife had gone and settled down at Sivaramapettai. One day prior to deepavali, the 4th accused had left his wife at the house of his father-in-law. The deceased had also returned to the village instantaneously for deepavali. Because of the above incident, there were ill feeling between A4 and the deceased. The accused 1 to 3 and 5 are the close associates of the 4th accused. One day prior to deepavali, the 4th accused had left his wife at the house of his father-in-law. The deceased had also returned to the village instantaneously for deepavali. Because of the above incident, there were ill feeling between A4 and the deceased. The accused 1 to 3 and 5 are the close associates of the 4th accused. While so, on 14.11.2002, at about 1.30 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased, after completing transplantation work in their field were returning to their house. When they were nearing Samuthrakulam Kaalvai, all the three accused emerged suddenly. At that time, the deceased was going in his cycle ahead of P.Ws.1 to 3. These five accused suddenly intercepted him and mounted attack on him with weapons. The accused 1 to 3 attacked the deceased with aruval. The other accused induced them to commit murder. The deceased sustained eight injuries and died instantaneously. 2.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Puliyangudi police station at 3 p.m., and preferred Exhibit P-1 complaint. P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police, attached to Puliyangudi police Station on receipt of Exhibit P-1, registered a case in Crime No. 337 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. Exhibit P-15 is the First Information Report. Then he forwarded Exhibits P-1 and P15 to the Court. Thereafter, at 4.30 p.m., he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.2 and another witness. He also prepared a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence. Then, between 5.30 p.m. onwards, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. During which, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Exhibit P-17 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 3. P.W.4, Jawahar Nisha, was an Assistant Surgeon working at Puliyangudi Government Hospital. On 15.11.2002, at 10.30 a.m., she conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. She found the following injuries: 1. cut injury found on the left fore arm; wrist along with left fore arm are separated. (left hand fore arm was missing above the wrist) (hand was amputated). 2. Near axilla oval shaped crushed wound. 3. cut injury found in the occipital region below the right ear measuring 10” x 2½” x 2” depth. 4. cut injury found below angle of mandible below the left ear measuring 10” x 5 x 4” depth. (left hand fore arm was missing above the wrist) (hand was amputated). 2. Near axilla oval shaped crushed wound. 3. cut injury found in the occipital region below the right ear measuring 10” x 2½” x 2” depth. 4. cut injury found below angle of mandible below the left ear measuring 10” x 5 x 4” depth. 5. cut injury found on the backside of left thigh measuring 8”x 5”x 1 ½” 6. cut injury found on the left shoulder measuring 2½” x 2” x ½” 7. cut injury found on the backside of the upper part of left hand measuring 6”x1”x1”. 8. Crushed wound found on the backside of left hand measuring 4” x 2” x 1”. Exhibit P-5 is the postmortem certificate. She opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and the death would have occurred 20 to 24 hours prior to postmortem. 4. Continuing the investigation, P.W.11 recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses. On 15.11.2002, he arrested all the five accused at 3.00 p.m., at Punnaiyapuram west Munthal forest Karpaga Nachiyar Amman koil. On such arrest, in the presence of P.W.6, the first accused gave a voluntary confession. In which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval. Then, all the five accused took the police, at 3.15 p.m., to Samuthrakula karai Ayyanar samy koil from where the first accused produced an aruval (M.O.6). Similarly, the second accused produced another aruval M.O.7. The third accused produced yet another aruval M.O.8. P.W.11 recovered these weapons under mahazar. Then, he returned to the police station with the accused and the properties. He forwarded the accused for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. He examined few more witnesses including P.W.5. P.W.5, who has spoken to about the motive. Since he was transferred at that stage, he handed over the investigation to P.W.12. 5. Taking up the case for further investigation, P.W.12 gave a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate, for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. Accordingly, chemical examination was conducted. Exhibit P-4 is he chemical analysis report and Exhibit P-11 is the serology report. According to Exhibit P-4, human blood was found on the aruvals recovered from the accused. 5. Taking up the case for further investigation, P.W.12 gave a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate, for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. Accordingly, chemical examination was conducted. Exhibit P-4 is he chemical analysis report and Exhibit P-11 is the serology report. According to Exhibit P-4, human blood was found on the aruvals recovered from the accused. The blood group in one of the aruvals was of ‘B’ group, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. P.W.12 examined P.W.4 Dr. Jawahar Nisha and collected the medical records. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the five accused. Based on the materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the above and they were, therefore, put on trial. 6. In order to prove the charges on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 17 documents are exhibited, besides 8 material objects. 7. As we have already pointed out P.Ws.1 to 3 claimed to be the eye witnesses, they have spoken to about the entire occurrence including the motive. P.W.5 has spoken to about the motive. P.W.6 has spoken to about the arrest of the accused 1 to 3 and the recovery of the aruval from their possession. The others are official witnesses. 8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side. Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court acquitted all the five accused from all the charges. That is how, the State is before this Court with this appeal. 9. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/accused and we have also perused the records carefully. 10. Before going into the facts of the case, let us have a quick look on the legal position regarding the scope of an appeal against acquittal. 11. The learned senior counsel has relied on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murugesan and Others v. State through Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 MLJ (Crl) 5 (SC). 10. Before going into the facts of the case, let us have a quick look on the legal position regarding the scope of an appeal against acquittal. 11. The learned senior counsel has relied on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murugesan and Others v. State through Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 MLJ (Crl) 5 (SC). This was a case, where the trial Court acquitted the accused on a charge of murder, against which, an appeal was preferred to the High Court. The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused. As against the same, an appeal was filed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While allowing the appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had reiterated the law related to the scope of an appeal against acquittal and the power of the High Court. 12. In paragraph Nos. 25 to 27 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reported as follows: “25. In the above facts can it be said that the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view? If the answer is in the affirmative, the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the acquittal of the accused appellants, on the principles of law referred to earlier, ought not to have been exercised. In other words, the reversal the acquittal could have been made by the High Court only if the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court did not reflect a possible view. It must be emphasized that the inhibition to interfere must be perceived only in a situation where the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view. The use of the expression “possible view” is conscious and not without good reasons. The said expression is in contradistinction to expressions such as “erroneous view” or “wrong view” which, at first blush may, seem to convey a similar meaning though a fine and subtle difference would be clearly discrenible. 26. The expressions “erroneous”, “wrong” and “possible” are defined in the Oxford English Dictionary in the following terms: “erroneous : wrong; incorrect. Wrong : 1.not correct or true, mistaken 2.unjust, dishonest or immoral. Possible: 1.capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. 2. that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.” 27. 26. The expressions “erroneous”, “wrong” and “possible” are defined in the Oxford English Dictionary in the following terms: “erroneous : wrong; incorrect. Wrong : 1.not correct or true, mistaken 2.unjust, dishonest or immoral. Possible: 1.capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. 2. that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.” 27. It will be necessary for us to emphasize that a possible denotes an opinion which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. A view taken by a Court lower in the hierarchical structure may be termed as erroneous or wrong by a superior Court upon a mere disagreement. But such a conclusion of the higher Court would not take the view rendered by the subordinate Court outside the arena of a possible view. The correctness or otherwise of any conclusion reached by a Court has to be tested on the basis of what the superior judicial authority perceives to be the correct conclusion. A possible view, on the other hand, denotes a conclusion which can reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact where it is agreed upon or not by the higher Court. The fundamental distinction between the two situations have to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial Court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial Court.” 13. A close reading of the above judgment would make it abundantly clear that the presumption that an accused is an innocent until his guilt is proved, gets further strengthened by the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. Of course, the said presumption is rebuttable. But, the onus is heavy upon the prosecution to place materials to rebut the said presumption. As has been put simply by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, inhibition to interfere must be perceived only in a situation where the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view. The use of the expression “possible view” is conscious and not without good reasons. As has been put simply by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, inhibition to interfere must be perceived only in a situation where the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view. The use of the expression “possible view” is conscious and not without good reasons. The said expression is in a contradistinction to expression such as “erroneous view” or “wrong view”, which, at first blush may, seem to convey a similar meaning though a fine and subtle difference would be clearly discrenible. Therefore, it is duty of the prosecution to convince this Court that the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view going by the materials placed by way of evidence. If only the prosecution is able to convince the Court on this aspect, then it would be useful for this Court to come out of the inhibition to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 14. With the above legal principles in mind, let us now analyse as to whether the view taken by the trial Court is possible or not. 15. The alleged occurrence in this case was at 1.30 p.m., on 14.11.2002. It is alleged that the complaint was preferred at 3.00 p.m. at the police station by P.W.1. Admittedly, the FIR and the complaint had reached the learned Judicial Magistrate only at 8.00 p.m. It is in the evidence of P.W.9 that the distance between the police station and that of the house of the learned Judicial Magistrate is hardly two furlongs. It is too difficult to believe that P.W.9 would have taken five hours to travel a distance of two furlongs. Thus, the delay between 3.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. has not been explained away at all by the prosecution. The trial Court has given much weightage for this inordinate delay, which has not been explained away by the prosecution. The trial Court has doubted the very presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the trial Court has held that the FIR would have come in to existence by few deliberations and that is why, such enormous delay has occurred. We do not find any reason to take a different view on this aspect. 16. Nextly, the trial Court has found that the medical evidence does not corroborate the eye witnesses account. We do not find any reason to take a different view on this aspect. 16. Nextly, the trial Court has found that the medical evidence does not corroborate the eye witnesses account. P.W.10, the doctor, who have conducted autopsy, has stated that a part of the left hand above wrist was found missing. It was not found anywhere near the place of occurrence. The prosecution has not come forward with any plausible explanation as to what had happened to the missing left hand. Had it been true that P.Ws.1 to 3 were present at the time, when the deceased was attacked, certainly, they would have noticed as to what had happened to the major part of the left hand, which is missing. It is not as though, after the occurrence, all the three witnesses left the place of occurrence and so in their absence somebody or some animal would have removed the part of the hand. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 3 were present at the scene of occurrence through out. Had it been true that they were present through out, there was no chance for a portion of the hand being taken away from the scene of occurrence by some one or some animal. This has been given much weightage of by the trial Court and on this basis also, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that P.Ws.1 to 3 would not have present in the scene of occurrence. In our considered view, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be taken as unreasonable or impossible view. 17. Nextly, the trial Court has considered the non examination of any independent witness to speak about the occurrence. As we have pointed out earlier, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the father and brother-in-law and sister of the deceased. In Exhibit P-1 itself, P.W.1 has stated that apprehending that the people who are working near the place of occurrence in the field, would reach to the place, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. From this, the lower Court has inferred that there were independent witness available at the scene of occurrence. Had it been true that independent witnesses were so present, atleast, one or two of them could have been examined. But no such witness has been examined. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. From this, the lower Court has inferred that there were independent witness available at the scene of occurrence. Had it been true that independent witnesses were so present, atleast, one or two of them could have been examined. But no such witness has been examined. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. P.W.4, Dr.Zahir Nisha has stated that at the time of postmortem, she found partly digested food materials in the stomach. She has further opined that the deceased would have taken food within two hours prior to his death. But, it is the original case of the prosecution that P.Ws.1 to 3 along with the deceased were engaged in transplantation work in the field from the morning till 1.30 p.m. After that, when they were returning to their house, the occurrence had taken place. Thus, as per the original case projected by the prosecution, the deceased did not take food at all. But, in the evidence, now P.Ws.1 to 3, have uniformly stated that after finishing transplantation work, the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 had lunch and they were returning to their house and at that time, the occurrence had taken place. 18. The learned senior counsel for the respondents would submit that this information has been made only to match the food particles found in the stomach of the deceased. The trial Court has considered this aspect also. In a given case, when there are identical contradiction, as has been held by the Supreme Court repeatedly, it is an indicator that the witnesses have been tutored on an vital aspect, vide. Rambilas and Others. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3954 : (1997) SCC (Cri) 1222. In this case, had it been true that the deceased had food at the field, after the work was over, nothing would have prevented the witnesses to tell the police, when they were interrogated about the same. But, only after knowing that the doctor has opined that there was partly digested food materials in the stomach of the deceased, it is obvious that P.Ws.1 to 3 have been tutored to improve the case by saying that they had lunch in the field. This also creates doubt about the very presence of P.Ws.1 to 3. 19. The learned senior counsel would point out that Ms.Mallika, the wife of A4 to speak about the motive. This also creates doubt about the very presence of P.Ws.1 to 3. 19. The learned senior counsel would point out that Ms.Mallika, the wife of A4 to speak about the motive. The trial Court has given much weightage for this non examination of A4’s wife. In our considered opinion, the non examination of A4’s wife cannot be given undue weightage to prove the motive. Because, motive has been clearly spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.5 and P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.8, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, originally enquired about the elopement of Mallika and the deceased. Thus, the motive has been clearly established by the prosecution. But, the motive is always a double edged weapon. Only based on the motive, the Court cannot reach to the conclusion that the accused have committed the murder. 20. Nextly, the learned senior counsel for the respondents would point out that though it is stated that there were some utensils in the cycle of the deceased, they were not recovered. This, in our considered opinion, is not a vital fact, which will go to destroy the case of the prosecution. 21. From the above narration and discussion, we can safely hold that the view taken by the trial Court is not impossible. In this case, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra, unless it is shown that the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view, it is not possible for this Court to interfere wit the judgment of the trial Court. We hold that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in the appeal. 22. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.