JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal by the State. The respondents are the accused Nos. 1 to 7 in S.C. No. 468 of 2001, on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. There were as many as seven charges framed against the accused. The first charge is under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code against all the seven accused; the second charge is under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code against all the seven accused; the third charge is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos. 1 to 6; the fourth charge is under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos. 3,4, 5 and 7; the fifth charge is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the sixth accused; the sixth charge is under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the first accused and the seventh charge is under Section 324 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the fifth accused. By judgment dated 7.2.2003, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused/respondents. Aggrieved over 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. Mahalingam. P.W.1 is his brother. P.W.2 to P.W.5 are the villagers and they were close to the deceased. Five years prior to the occurrence, P.W.3, one Mr. Balu and one Mr. V. Ramar, S/o. Vel Nadar were travelling in a tractor, which was carrying bricks. They were laughing. The tractor was proceeding towards Poolangulam Village, via Ramanathapuram. One Billa alias Vetrivel Murugan, S/o.Ramar, noticed the same as though they were laughing to tease him. Two days after the said incident, the said Billa alias Vetrivel Murugan had beaten up the said V.Ramar. Mr. V. Ramar, S/o. Vel Nadar, informed the same to the deceased, P.W.3, P.W.5 and the others. All of them went to Ramanathapuram Village and informed the same to one Arunachala Nadar, who was working as a Postman, to convene a panchayat to settle the issue. The said Arunachala Nadar, (Postmaster), assured them to settle the issue by means of a panchayat. But, there was no panchayat convened. All of them went to Ramanathapuram Village and informed the same to one Arunachala Nadar, who was working as a Postman, to convene a panchayat to settle the issue. The said Arunachala Nadar, (Postmaster), assured them to settle the issue by means of a panchayat. But, there was no panchayat convened. Thereafter, on 8.6.1998, when P.W.1 had gone to a local temple, the said Billa alias Vetrivel Murugan and one Murugan, M. Sakthikani, S/o. Murugan attempted to beat P.W.1. The deceased, P.W.1 and the others informed Arunachala Nadar to warn Billa alias Vetrivel Murugan, (first accused) and S. Murugan, S/o. Sakthikani Nadar, not to behave in such a manner in future. The deceased – Mahalingam also told the said Arunachala Nadar that he would destroy the entire village of Ramanathapuram, if the villagers of Ramanathapuram continued to attack the people from Subramaniyapuram village. 2.1. On 16.6.1998, at about 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 was working in a local brick kiln. At that time, all these accused, who belonged to Ramanathapuram, came to the spot. All were armed with wooden logs. They attempted to attack P.W.1 with wooden logs. P.W.1 escaped and ran towards north. On his way, P.W.1 found P.W.2 engaged in plucking brinjal in his field. P.W.3 to P.W.5 were also with P.W.2 engaged in plucking brinjal. The deceased – Mahalingam was talking to them. P.W.1 rushed towards them and joined them. The deceased told the accused not to quarrel and to disperse. But, the accused did not stop. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 started mounting attack on the deceased with wooden logs. The first accused attacked him on his left forehand, the second accused attacked him on his head, the third accused attacked him on his left elbow, the fourth accused attacked him on the left chest, the fifth accused attacked him on the right side of the chest and the sixth accused attacked him on the left elbow. The deceased sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious and later on died. 2.2. In respect of the said attack made by the accused Nos. 1 to 6 on the deceased, they were charged for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious and later on died. 2.2. In respect of the said attack made by the accused Nos. 1 to 6 on the deceased, they were charged for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the same occurrence, the third accused attacked P.W.3 with wooden log on his right upper arm, the fourth accused attacked him with wooden log on the left upper arm, the fifth accused attacked P.W.2 with wooden log on his upper arm, the seventh accused attacked P.W.2 near his right eyebrow, the seventh accused attacked P.W.5 on his knee and also kicked him on his testicles. 2.3. In respect of these allegations, the accused 3, 4 and 5 were charged for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the seventh accused was charged for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code [two counts]. In the same occurrence, the sixth accused attacked P.W.2 with wooden log on his head. In respect of the same, he was charged for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused were also charged for offence under Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code for having criminally intimidated P.W.1, as narrated above. So far as the fifth accused is concerned, apart from Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, he was also charged for offence under Section 324 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, in respect of the attack made on the witnesses. Similarly, the fifth accused stood charged for offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the attack made on the witnesses. 2.4. Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 proceeded to the Alangulam Police Station and at 10.30 p.m., preferred a written complaint. P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No. 474 of 1998 under Sections 147 , 148 , 323 , 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Exhibit P-21 is the First Information Report. He forwarded the complaint, Exhibit P-1 and the First Information Report, Exhibit P-21 to the Court. Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he prepared an Observation Mahazer, Exhibit P-2 and Rough Sketch, Exhibit P-22 in the presence of three witnesses. Then, he examined few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Exhibit P-21 is the First Information Report. He forwarded the complaint, Exhibit P-1 and the First Information Report, Exhibit P-21 to the Court. Then, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he prepared an Observation Mahazer, Exhibit P-2 and Rough Sketch, Exhibit P-22 in the presence of three witnesses. Then, he examined few more witnesses and recorded their statements. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. Exhibit P-23 is the Inquest Report. Thereafter, P.W.15 forwarded P.W.2 to P.W.5 to the hospital for treatment. 2.5. P.W.9, Dr. Ajiz, examined P.W.2 at 8.00 a.m. on 16.6.1998 and found the following injuries: “pain in right hand” Exhibit P-14 is the Accident Register. On the same day, at 8.00 a.m., he examined P.W.4 and found the following injury: “Abrasion in the scalp 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm” Exhibit P-15 is the Accident Register. At 8.00 a.m., on the same day, he examined P.W.3 and found the following injuries: “pain in the hand” Exhibit P-16 is the Accident Register. P.W.11, Dr. C. Babu, examined P.W.5 on 19.6.1998 and found the following injuries: “1. A swelling on the left knee joint 5” x 5” x 1”. 2. Pain and tenderess over the right thigh (middle) on the anterior aspect.” Exhibit P-17 is the Accident Register. 2.6. During the course of investigation, P.W.15 arrested the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, on 17.6.1998, at 6.15 p.m. at Athiyuthu bus stop, in the presence of P.W.7, P.W.8 and another witness. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed the place, where he had hidden the wooden log. The third accused also gave a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed the place, where he had hidden the wooden log. Similarly, the fourth accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed the place, where he had hidden the wooden log. Lastly, the fifth accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he had disclosed the place, where he had hidden the wooden log. In pursuance of the above said respective disclosure statements, the respective accused took the police and the witnesses to the respective places and produced the wooden logs (M.O.4 to M.O.7). P.W.15 recovered the same under Exhibit P-28, mahazer. After inquest, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 2.7. P.W.12, Dr. In pursuance of the above said respective disclosure statements, the respective accused took the police and the witnesses to the respective places and produced the wooden logs (M.O.4 to M.O.7). P.W.15 recovered the same under Exhibit P-28, mahazer. After inquest, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 2.7. P.W.12, Dr. E. Ramasubbu, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, on 17.6.1998, at 11.45 a.m. He found the following injuries: “1. Left eye swollen, odmatous, contusion by upper lids with an abrasion ½ x ½ x blood clots seen. 2. Lacerated by 4 x 1 cm front of center of center of scalp. Skull bone is exposed. 3. Two abrasion 1 x ½ x middle of right forearm. 4. Linear abrasion 4 x 2 cm below right chest on lateral aspect. 5. Two linear abrasion 3 x 1 cm below left chest an lateral aspect. 6. Linear contusion 8 cm x 2 cm left fore arem inner aspect. 7. Contusion 2 x 1 cm with back of left elbow. 8. Abrasion 2 x 1 cm back of right shoulder.” Exhibit P-19 is the Postmortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased died due to shock, haemorrhage due to multiple injuries in vital organs. He further opined that the said injuries would have been caused on the attack of wooden logs. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The accused pleaded innocence, and therefore, they were put on trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses and marked twenty eight documents, besides ten Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are the injured eye witnesses. They have spoken to about the entire occurrence as well as the individual overt acts of each accused. P.W.6 is the one, in whose presence, the Observation Mahazer was prepared by P.W.15. 5. On completing the investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet against the accused. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to exhibit any document in their defence. Having considered the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused under all the charges. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor to exhibit any document in their defence. Having considered the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused under all the charges. That is how, the State/appellant is now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State that P.W.1 to P.W.5 are the injured eye witnesses, and thus, their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. He would further submit that they have vividly spoken to about the participation of these respondents/accused and their individual overt acts. He would further add that the medical evidence duly corroborates the eye-witness account of P.W.1 to P.W.5. But, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the Lower Court has disbelieved the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5 on flimsy grounds. One of the grounds is that the complaint would not have been given by P.W.1 at all, since P.W.1 had deposed before the Lower Court that he did not know the names of any of the accused, whereas in Exhibit P-1, the names of the accused and their respective fathers’ names have been stated. 8. Nextly, the Lower Court has found fault with the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5. According to the Lower Court, no witness has spoken to about the overt acts as stated in the charges. In other words, the evidence is not in tune with the charges and even among P.W.1 to P.W.5, there are lot of contradictions in respect of the overt acts attributed against the accused. The Lower Court has further held that the important witnesses, who have been referred to as witnesses for motive, have not been examined. In respect of the arrest of the accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 and the consequential recoveries of the wooden logs, the Lower Court has found that though it is the case of the prosecution that they have been arrested on 17.6.1998, the prosecution witnesses have admitted that even when they were at the Police Station, when complaint was preferred, the accused were kept in the Police Station in custody. Thus, the Lower Court has found that the recoveries of M.O.4 to M.O.7 cannot be believed. The Lower Court has held that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence, and thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, contend that these contradictions pointed out by the Lower Court are all immaterial. He would further contend that even assuming that the arrest of the accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, on 17.6.1998 is not true, on that score, the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5, who are the injured eye witnesses, cannot be disbelieved. He would conclude his argument, by contending that the Judgment of the Trail Court requires interference at the hands of this Court and the accused should be convicted under all the charges. 10. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3, 5 and 7 would stoutly oppose the Criminal Appeal. According to him, when there are number of accused in this case and when there is a motive between two villagers, prompt lodging of the complaint becomes very essential. The Lower Court has given due weightage for the said legal position and has held that since the First Information Report has been proved to be a concocted document, the entire case of the prosecution should be rejected as false. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the very fact that the arrest of the accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 has been concocted and the recoveries of the Material Objects (M.O.4 to M.O.7) have also been concocted, it can be inferred that the prosecution was bent upon to concoct a false story. The evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5 are not only contradictory to each other, but they have contradicted their own earliest statement made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For these reasons, the Judgment of the Lower Court does not require any interference, the learned counsel contended. 11. We have considered the above submissions carefully. At the outset, we would like to state that in an appeal against acquittal, it is the settled law that in the event there are two views possible, the Appellate Court cannot substitute it’s view in the place of the view taken by the Trial Court. 11. We have considered the above submissions carefully. At the outset, we would like to state that in an appeal against acquittal, it is the settled law that in the event there are two views possible, the Appellate Court cannot substitute it’s view in the place of the view taken by the Trial Court. It is also the settled law that the initial presumption of innocence of the accused gets further strengthened by the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Unless the said presumption is rebutted by the prosecution, it is not at all possible for this Court to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court, acquitting the accused. 12. With the above broad legal principles in mind, let us now analyze the rival submissions. 13. Admittedly, the accused party belong to Ramanathapuram Village, whereas the prosecution party belong to Subramaniapuram Village. Of course, they are neighbouring villages. But, P.W.1, during cross-examination, has stated that he did not know the names of any of the accused as well as their respective fathers’ names. When that be so, it would not have been possible for him to mention the names of the accused in the complaint, Exhibit P-1. But, curiously, in Exhibit P-1 the names of these accused, including their respective fathers’ names have been mentioned. This has been given weightage of by the Trial Court to hold that Exhibit P-1 would not have been given by P.W.1 and as a matter of fact, the same would have been concocted after deliberation. 14. In this regard, we do not find any reason to take a different view than the view taken by the Trial Court. We too hold that Exhibit P-1, in this case, is a doubtful document. If once it is held that the earliest information has been suppressed and the complaint is a doubtful document, then, the case of the prosecution should be viewed with suspicion and the witnesses on the side of the prosecution should be closely scrutinized. In this case, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are, of course, injured eye witnesses. Therefore, their presence, at the time of occurrence cannot be disputed at all. But, at the same time, the question is whether P.W.1 to P.W.5 could be believed so as to hold the respondents guilty. In this case, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are, of course, injured eye witnesses. Therefore, their presence, at the time of occurrence cannot be disputed at all. But, at the same time, the question is whether P.W.1 to P.W.5 could be believed so as to hold the respondents guilty. As we have narrated in the earlier paragraphs of this Judgment, based on the materials collected during investigation, including the statements of P.W.1 to P.W.5, appropriate charges were framed and the charges contained the individual overt acts of each accused. But, a perusal of the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5 would go to show that their evidences are not in tune with the overt acts alleged in the respective charges. In their evidences, they have made quite contrary statements making out different kinds of overt acts to the accused. It is for this reason, the Lower Court has held that the evidences of these witnesses are not in tune with the charges and on this score, the Trial Court has doubted the veracity of these witnesses. On this aspect, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court. 15. Nextly, the Lower Court has found that the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5 are not only contradictory to each other, but they contradict their own earlier statements made under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police during the course of investigation. The Lower Court has vividly narrated the said contradictions. As a matter of fact, the Lower Court has dealt with the evidences against each accused in respect of the overt acts as alleged by P.W.1 to P.W.5 and ultimately, the Lower Court has found that there are lot of contradictions. We have carefully gone through the Judgment of the Trial Court on this aspect as well as the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5. We too find that there are lot of contradictions, which make the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5 as unbelievable. 16. The Lower Court has found fault with the non-examination of Ramar, S/o. Arunachala Nadar, who should have been examined to speak about the motive. We too find that there are lot of contradictions, which make the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5 as unbelievable. 16. The Lower Court has found fault with the non-examination of Ramar, S/o. Arunachala Nadar, who should have been examined to speak about the motive. The Trial Court has also found that the prosecution has not examined Arunachala Nadar (postmaster), who should have been examined to speak about the request made by the people of Ramathapuram Village for convening a panchayat and the incident happened at Ramanathapuram Village, just few days prior to the occurrence. In our considered view, the non-examination of these witnesses, though not vital, still is a point in favour of the accused. Finally, the Trial Court has considered the arrest of the accused 1, 3, 4 and 5 on 17.6.1998, their respective confessions and the consequential recoveries of M.O.4 to M.O.7. The Lower Court has found that P.W.2 has admitted during the course of cross-examination that the accused were found in the custody of the police, when Exhibit P-1 was preferred. The prosecution has not explained away this improbability. Had it been true that these accused were in the custody of the police even on the date of the occurrence, then, the arrest of the accused on 17.6.1998 and the consequential recoveries of M.O.4 to M.O.7 cannot be true. Regarding this view taken by the Trial Court also, we do not find any infirmity. 17. A perusal of the Judgment of the Trial Court, the reasons stated by the Trial Court for acquittal and the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.5 would all go to show that the prosecution had not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. Though P.W.1 to P.W.5 are injured eye-witnesses, they are not trustworthy. When the Trial Court has held that P.W.1 to P.W.5 are not trustworthy, unless the prosecution is able to show that the said view taken by the Trial Court is an impossible view, it is not at all possible for this Court to interfere with the said view taken by the trial Court. In this case, the prosecution has not brought to our notice any material to hold that the view taken by the Trial Court that P.W.1 to P.W.5 are not trustworthy is an impossible view. 18. In this case, the prosecution has not brought to our notice any material to hold that the view taken by the Trial Court that P.W.1 to P.W.5 are not trustworthy is an impossible view. 18. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere wit the Judgment of the Trial Court. We too hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents recorded by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed.