JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge State has appealed against the judgment dated 24.9.2012 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No.32-N/7 of 2007/06, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pankaj Kumar and others, challenging the acquittal of respondents-accused Pankaj Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Baru Ram (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stand charged for having committed offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 29.8.2005 at about 10.15 p.m., Sandeep Kumar (PW-21) alongwith his Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? friends Aniket (not examined) and Apurav Chaudhary (PW-2) were present at Telli Mohalla Chowk, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Nahan. At about 10.20 p.m., Pankaj (accused No.1), Sanjay Kumar alias Sanju (accused No.2) and Baru Ram (accused No.3) reached on the spot. Altercation took place between them and accused Pankaj slapped Sandeep Kumar (PW-21). When Aniket and PW-2 intervened, PW-21 was given beatings. In the milieu, accused No.2 stabbed PW-2 and Aniket, with a knife, in their abdomen. Accused persons harboured animosity against the complainant, on account of recent previous incident. The incident in question was witnessed by Banti (not examined), Vir Vikram (PW-16) and Amit Kumar (PW-1). Both Aniket and PW-2 were taken to the hospital for treatment. Police was informed and police party, headed by SI Biru Ahmed (PW-20) reached the spot, recorded the statement of Sandeep Kumar (PW-21), under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ex. PW-20/A), on the basis of which FIR No.182, dated 29.8.2005 (Ex. PW-11/A), under the provisions of Section 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Nahan, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. The injured were got medically examined from Dr. Amit Kumar (PW-9), who issued MLCs (Ex.PW-9/A & 9/B). Police arrested the accused on 30.10.2005. Accused Sanjay Kumar and Pankaj made disclosure statements (Ex. PW-4/A & 4/B, respectively), on the basis of which they got recovered knives (Ex.P-3 & P-4), weapons of offence, as also their blood stained clothes (Ex. P-5 & P-6, respectively), which were seized vide seizure Memos (Ex. PW-7/A & 7/B). Recovery was effected in the presence of HC Ram Gopal (PW-7). Accused Sanjay Kumar and Pankaj made disclosure statements (Ex. PW-4/A & 4/B, respectively), on the basis of which they got recovered knives (Ex.P-3 & P-4), weapons of offence, as also their blood stained clothes (Ex. P-5 & P-6, respectively), which were seized vide seizure Memos (Ex. PW-7/A & 7/B). Recovery was effected in the presence of HC Ram Gopal (PW-7). Weapons of offence as also clothes, so recovered by the police, were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PW-20/A) was taken on record by the police. Investigation revealed that Ankit was referred for further treatment to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (PGI) at Chandigarh, where he was examined by Dr. Sanjeev Kapoor (PW-10), who endorsed reports (Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B). With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and statements of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they took up a defence of innocence and false implication. 5. Based on the material, so placed on record by the prosecution, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 6. Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Additional Advocate General, ably assisted by Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has invited our attention to the testimonies of relevant prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, in relation to the charged offence. It is contended that trial Court seriously erred in appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses, which has resulted into return of faulty findings and thus travesty of justice. Findings returned are on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises; Court misconstrued clear, cogent, convincing and material piece of evidence on record, establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that injuries sustained by Apurv Chaudhary (PW-2), Aniket (not examined) were in fact inflicted by the accused persons. 7. Findings returned are on the basis of mere conjectures and surmises; Court misconstrued clear, cogent, convincing and material piece of evidence on record, establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that injuries sustained by Apurv Chaudhary (PW-2), Aniket (not examined) were in fact inflicted by the accused persons. 7. It is well established principle of law that (i) the appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be more probable; (ii) while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court must consider entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of the trial court are perverse or otherwise unsustainable; (iii) the appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible fact; and (iv) the trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See: Balak Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165 ; Allarakha K Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC 57 ; Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398 ; State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 3075 ; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2066 ; Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186 ; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (2009) 16 SCC 98 ; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 445 ). 8. In Sheo Swaroop and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186 ; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (2009) 16 SCC 98 ; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 445 ). 8. In Sheo Swaroop and Ors. v. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy Council held that: "...the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses...." 9. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the apex Court observed as under: "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate 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. (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." 10. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne @ Baijnath & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 271 , the apex Court gave illustrations of certain circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court, which principle, in our considered view, would squarely apply to the judgment under review by us. The circumstances include; (i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; (ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice; (iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case; (v) Apex Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court; and (vi) the apex Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. The apex Court further held that “Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the trial court in a routine manner, where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. Applying the aforesaid principles, at the threshold, we may observe that prosecution has only examined Apurv Chaudhary (PW-2), one of the injured. For certain unknown reasons, the other injured, namely Aniket has not been examined, though prosecution has examined his father Jagdish Chand (PW-19), who significantly, in the instant case, is not witness to the incident. In fact, he does not even name any of the accused persons to have inflicted injuries on the body of his son Aniket or Apurv Chaudhary. All that he states is that a boy, whose name he does not know, had informed him that his son was stabbed and he rushed to the spot and took the injured for treatment to the hospital at Chandigarh. He does not even state that his son Aniket had disclosed the name of the assailants. 12. Coming to the testimony of PW-2, we find that this witness has not supported the prosecution at all, despite being extensively cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He categorically states that he does not know the names of persons who stabbed him. He admits not to have seen the person who gave the blow. He also did not see the knife, i.e. alleged weapon of offence with which blows were inflicted. He could not state as to whether blows were given by accused Sanjay Kumar or not, for the reason that the place where incident took place, it was dark. He states that after sustaining injuries he fell unconscious and does not know as to how Aniket sustained injuries. Thus, the injured has not supported the prosecution case at all. 13. SI Biru Ahmed (PW-20), who conducted the investigation, admits it to be true that accused Baru Ram was not involved in the incident of stabbing. He admits that there was no animosity between Baru Ram and the injured persons. Thus, the injured has not supported the prosecution case at all. 13. SI Biru Ahmed (PW-20), who conducted the investigation, admits it to be true that accused Baru Ram was not involved in the incident of stabbing. He admits that there was no animosity between Baru Ram and the injured persons. If that be so, then obviously, testimony of this witness, who proved recording of statements of Aniket and PW-2, in his attempt to prove the guilt of the accused, cannot be said to be trustworthy and reliable. None of the independent witnesses record presence of Baru on the spot. 14. With regard to alleged disclosure statements made by the accused persons, we find that no independent witness was associated by the police. Why so? has not been explained. We do not find PW-2 to have supported the prosecution at all and the other witness to be of trust. We also do not find testimony of HHC Jagdish Singh (PW-4) and HC Ram Gopal (PW-7), the police officials, in whose presence recovery of incriminating articles was effected, to be trustworthy. Police has tried to implicate the accused without any basis. No explanation is forthcoming as to why independent witnesses were not associated in a case of this nature. Though police officials do not state that any independent witness was associated for effecting recovery, but however, we find that in Court prosecution has tried to introduce a witness, namely Bela Singh (PW-3), who also has not supported the prosecution with regard to recovery of incriminating articles. In fact, testimony of police officials stands belied by this witness. This witness was cross-examined at length by the Public Prosecutor and despite the same, nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. Noticeably, he is a Priest, who looks after the graveyard, from where alleged weapons of offence were recovered. There is uncontroverted testimony of his, from which it is evidently clear that before this witness was associated in effecting recovery, police had already recovered the weapons. Thus police case on recovery stands belied. 15. Prosecution has examined Amit Kumar (PW-1) who also has not supported the prosecution case at all. According to the police, this witness was present on the spot but he denies such fact. 16. Prosecution wants us to believe that police proceeded to the spot on the basis of information supplied to them by Sandeep Kumar (PW-21). 15. Prosecution has examined Amit Kumar (PW-1) who also has not supported the prosecution case at all. According to the police, this witness was present on the spot but he denies such fact. 16. Prosecution wants us to believe that police proceeded to the spot on the basis of information supplied to them by Sandeep Kumar (PW-21). We find that even this witness has turned hostile. The witness categorically denies any incident having taken place prior to the incident in question, inter se two groups, i.e. the accused and the injured. He also denies having witnessed the occurrence of the incident in the manner in which the prosecution wants us to believe. 17. We may also observe that prosecution witnesses have denied having made statement to the police, with which they were duly confronted in Court, to the police. 18. We may also point out that even the link evidence is not supporting the prosecution case. Report of the FSL (Ex. PW-20/K) is silent with regard to the blood group, allegedly found on the clothes/weapon of offence to be that of either the assailants or the witnesses. 19. From the conjoint reading of testimony of all the prosecution witnesses, we find that trial Court has correctly and completely appreciated the material on record and while acquitting the accused persons, in relation to the charged offence, it cannot be said that findings and the judgment is based on mere conjectures, surmises and misreading of the testimonies of witnesses. It also cannot be said that the trial Court misdirected itself in appreciating the material so placed on record by the prosecution. It also cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused. 20. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused persons in furtherance of common intention caused stab injuries to the injured, with intention of causing their death. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 22. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 22. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments noticed earlier as also in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.