Judgment : (PER : C.V. BHADANG, J.) 1. The is an appeal by the State against acquittal of respondents/original accused. The respondents were put on trial in Sessions Case No.160/1997 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. Respondent nos.1 to 5 were charged under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code for having formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons with the common object of committing the murder of Pundlik Ringole, Pandurang Ringole and Vitthal Bhoyar. In addition, respondent no.3/original accused no.3 Kamlakar (since deceased) was also charged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Pundlik and under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code for attempting the murder of Pandurang and Vitthal. Respondent nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 were also charged under Sections 302, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that respondent no.3 Kamlakar committed the act in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. 2. According to the prosecution, one Kanta, the niece of the complainant Pandurang and Pundlik and sister of Vitthal had love affair with original accused no.2 Sanjay. This was not approved by the family members of Kanta and on account of that the relations between the two families were strained. This is said to be the motive behind the commission of the offence. 3. The incident in question occurred on 29.8.1997 at about 9:00 p.m. when complainant Pandurang was at his house. It is said that respondent/original accused Kamlakar (since deceased) was passing by the road in front of his house when a pet dog of the complainant barked at him, which led Pandurang, hitting the dog and abusing and threatening the complainant. The complainant came out of the house, there was some hot exchange of words. Thereafter, Kamlakar abused the complainant. The incident in question is said to have occurred at 'Pandhan' adjoining to the house of the complainant, where all the accused assembled. The respondent Deorao was having a stick, Prakash was having a knife and Deorao started assaulting Pandurang, Pundlik and Vitthal by stick. The respondent Prakash handed over a knife to Kamlakar and instigated him to assault. In consequence Kamlakar with the said knife assaulted Pandurang, Pundlik and Vitthal on their chest and abdomen etc. It is said that while Kamlakar was inflicting blows, respondents/accused Prakash, Sanjay and Gopal had caught hold of them. After that respondents went away. The respondent Prakash handed over a knife to Kamlakar and instigated him to assault. In consequence Kamlakar with the said knife assaulted Pandurang, Pundlik and Vitthal on their chest and abdomen etc. It is said that while Kamlakar was inflicting blows, respondents/accused Prakash, Sanjay and Gopal had caught hold of them. After that respondents went away. Pandurang thereafter lodged a report, on the basis of which an offence came to be registered. The injured were sent for medical examination. Initially, offence at Crime No.128/1997 was registered with Police Station, Wani under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the clothes of the injured persons were seized, spot panchanamas were drawn, certain seizures were made from the spot and the respondents came to be arrested. It is said that there were some injuries on the person of the respondents/accused as well. They were also sent for medical examination, blood samples of the respondents and the injured were collected. According to the prosecution, respondents Deorao and Kamlakar, while in custody, gave a confessional statement, which led to discovery of one knife and stick. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The seized weapons were sent for opinion of the medical officer and the opinion was obtained. The seized articles were also sent for the report of the Chemical Analyzer. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wani, which was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the respondents. The respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondents was of total denial and false implication. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all six witnesses and produced the record of the investigation. The respondents did not lead any evidence. The learned Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 3.9.1998 was pleased to convict and sentence the respondents as under : (i) Respondent no.3 – Kamlakar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Pundlik and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The respondents did not lead any evidence. The learned Sessions Judge by a judgment and order dated 3.9.1998 was pleased to convict and sentence the respondents as under : (i) Respondent no.3 – Kamlakar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Pundlik and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Pandurang and Vitthal and on each of these counts, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. (ii) Respondent – Kamlakar was, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code. (iii) Respondent no.1 Prakash, respondent no.2 – Sanjay, respondent no.4 – Deorao and respondent no.5 – Gopal have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent nos.1, 2 , 4 and 5, the State has filed this appeal. It appears that respondent no.1 – Prakash Ghogle, respondent no.3 – Kamlakar @ Kashinath and respondent no.4 – Deorao Ghogle have died during the pendency of the appeal. By an order dated 4.3.2013 the appeal stood abated as against these respondents. Thus, the consideration of the appeal is limited to the challenge of acquittal of respondent no.2 – Sanjay and respondent no. 5 – Gopal. It may be mentioned that respondent no.3, sole convicted accused, had filed Criminal Appeal No.421/1998 and by an order of even date that appeal also stood abated. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the entire evidence and the impugned judgment. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment would show that in paragraph no.35 onwards the learned Sessions Judge has found that all the respondents/accused were not present at the spot since beginning and as such it has been held that there was no premeditated attempt to commit any offence. 7. Perusal of the impugned judgment would show that in paragraph no.35 onwards the learned Sessions Judge has found that all the respondents/accused were not present at the spot since beginning and as such it has been held that there was no premeditated attempt to commit any offence. It was found that it was only respondent no.3 – Kamlakar who was alone at the spot while the other accused came there later on. It was also found that the prosecution evidence showed that the acquitted respondents came on the spot on hearing shouts. The learned Sessions Judge has noticed a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moti Das and others...Versus...The State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1954 SC 657 that an assembly which is not lawful at its inception can develop into one later on. In view of the learned Sessions Judge, the evidence was insufficient to hold that the respondents had formed unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder as alleged. The learned Sessions Judge has thereafter noticed certain improvements/discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and has proceeded to acquit the respondents. 8. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the reasoning, as articulated in paragraph no.35 onwards of the impugned judgment, is not borne out of record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us through the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in order to submit that there was clear evidence of the respondents having formed unlawful assembly with the common object of committing the murder as alleged. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was at pains to point out that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 would be sufficient to hold respondent nos.2 and 5 guilty for the offence. It is submitted that the evidence would be sufficient to hold that on the date of the incident, there was unlawful assembly formed by the respondents armed with weapons and had committed the offence as alleged. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed and respondent nos.2 and 5 be convicted for the offences as charged. 10. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal be allowed and respondent nos.2 and 5 be convicted for the offences as charged. 10. On the contrary, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited. It is submitted that unless and until it is shown that the view taken and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse and impossible, this Court cannot interfere in converting the finding of acquittal to one of conviction. In other words, it is submitted that even where two views are equally possible, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be substituted on the ground that the other view would be more probable. It is submitted that in the absence of the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge being found to be impossible or perverse, no interference is called for. The learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in this regard on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basappa...Versus...State of Karnataka, reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1497 (S.C.) 11. The learned Counsel has thereafter submitted that there is indeed a clear discrepancy as noticed by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph no.35 onwards of the impugned judgment and the view taken being a plausible and probable one, does not call for any interference. 12. At the outset, it may be mentioned that original accused no.3 – Kamlakar (since deceased) was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, while rest of the accused have been acquitted. Out of these, two accused are already dead and the only question is whether the appellants-original accused no.2 – Sanjay and accused no.5 – Gopal have been rightly acquitted or whether their acquittal needs interference. The relevant observation and reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge is to be found in his judgment in paragraph no.35, which is as under : “35. So far as offence u/s 148 of I.P. Code is concerned from evidence on record it is clear that all the accused were not present at the spot since beginning. So, there was no preplan to commit any offence. Accused Kamalakar was alone initially and other accused came to the spot later on. So far as offence u/s 148 of I.P. Code is concerned from evidence on record it is clear that all the accused were not present at the spot since beginning. So, there was no preplan to commit any offence. Accused Kamalakar was alone initially and other accused came to the spot later on. When accused nos.1,2,4 and 5 came to the spot evidence shows that they came on the spot on hearing shouts. So it cannot be said that when they came to the spot there was any unlawful assembly. Nodoubt as contended by learned A.P.P. for State and as observed in the decision cited by A.I.R.1954 S.C.657 Moti Das and others – Vs – The State of Bihar and A.I.R. 1958 Rajasthan 226 Ghansa Singh and other – Vs – State it is clear that the assembly which is lawful can turn into unlawful later on. But, in view of evidence on record in this case it is difficult to say that there was any unlawful assembly of accused nos.1 to 5 with common object to commit murder. Though the witnesses 1 to 3 have stated in their evidence the names of Gopal, Prakash and Sanjay as the persons who caughthold of Pundlik at the time when Kamalakar inflicted blows there is no mention of this important fact in F.I.R. Though it is mentioned by Vithal that accused Deorao caused injuries by stick, there is no mention about it in F.I.R. and no injury which could be caused by hard and blunt object was seen on the person of Pundlik, Vithal or Pandurang. Though Vithal states that Pandurang was caughthold by Prakash, Sanjay and Gopal when Kamalakar inflicted blows to Pandurang, Pandurang himself does not say about that. So also P.W.3 Bhaiyya who had also witnessed Kamalakar inflicting blows to Pandurang has not stated about catching hold by Prakash, Gopal and Sanjay Pandurang and there is no mention about it in F.I.R. Though Vithal states that Deorao had catchhold of him when Kamalakar inflicted blows of knife to him. So also P.W.3 Bhaiyya who had also witnessed Kamalakar inflicting blows to Pandurang has not stated about catching hold by Prakash, Gopal and Sanjay Pandurang and there is no mention about it in F.I.R. Though Vithal states that Deorao had catchhold of him when Kamalakar inflicted blows of knife to him. P.W. Pandurang and P.W.3 Bhaiyya do not state about that though they had witnessed the assault on Kamalakar and there is no mention about it in F.I.R. So far as catching hold by Prakash, Sanjay, Gopal and Pundlik when Kamalakar inflicted blows though Prakash and Vithal say like that, independent witness Bhaiyya does not state the name of Prakash, so there is difference. In such circumstances in view of omission of this material fact in F.I.R. and inconsistency in the evidence of witnesses who are eye witnesses to the incident, it is difficult to say conclusively that all the accused had taken part in commission of offence or assisted Kamalakar in committing the offence.” 13. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the discrepancies inter se between the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 – Pandurang, P.W.2 – Vitthal and P.W.3 – Bhaiyya in order to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove conclusively that all these accused had taken part in commission of the offence or assisted Kamlakar in committing the offence. The various discrepancies noticed can be stated as under : (i) Although P.W.1 to P.W.3 state in their evidence the names of Gopal, Prakash and Sanjay as the persons who had caught hold of Pundlik when Kamlakar inflicted blows, there is absence of mention of the same in the F.I.R. (ii) Although PW.2 – Vitthal states that the original accused Deorao assaulted by stick, there is no mention about the same in F.I.R. and no injury found to have been caused by hard and blunt object on the person of Pundlik, Vitthal or Pandurang. (iii) Though Vitthal states that Pandurang was caught hold by Prakash, Sanjay and Gopal and Kamlakar assaulted Pandurang, Pandurang himself does not say anything about this. (iii) Though Vitthal states that Pandurang was caught hold by Prakash, Sanjay and Gopal and Kamlakar assaulted Pandurang, Pandurang himself does not say anything about this. (iv) Though P.W.2 – Vitthal states that Deorao had caught hold of him and Kamlakar assaulted him by knife, P.W.1 – Pandurang and P.W.3 – Bhaiyya do not give that version and this also does not find place in the F.I.R. (v) P.W.3 – Bhaiyya, who is an independent witness, does not take the name of Prakash. In view of these discrepancies and the omissions in the F.I.R. and the inconsistencies, it was found that there is no evidence to say the involvement of these appellants in the offence. 14. We have carefully gone through the evidence of these witnesses and we do find that on account of the discrepancies as noticed and particularly in view of the fact that admittedly there was a dispute between the rival parties on account of Kanta, the niece of Pandurang and Pundlik and sister of Vitthal, marrying the appellant Sanjay against their wish (which would necessitate a close/cautious scrutiny of their evidence) the view as taken is certainly a plausible view. Although this Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal would have all the powers to reappreciate the evidence, it is now well settled that it is only when the view as taken by the learned trial Court is found to be impossible (which cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence on record) that this Court would be justified in interfering with the finding of acquittal. In other words, even where two views are equally plausible and possible and the trial Court opts for the one, the appellate Court is not justified in substituting the other view on the ground that it is more probable. It is only in the event the view is found to be totally unsustainable and impossible, interference in the finding of acquittal is warranted. We are of the considered view that the finding as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the appellants, cannot be said to be impossible view in the given circumstances. The view taken is based on the appreciation of evidence of the eyewitnesses. In that view of the matter, we find that no case for interference is made out. Consequently, the following order is passed. ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.