JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. This appeal is directed against the acquittal order passed by District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Session Case No.11/91 dated 18/5/1993, by which the learned Trial Court has acquitted all the three respondent-accused extending benefit of doubt and appellant-State has preferred this appeal submitting to set aside the impugned order and to convict and sentence the respondent accused persons. 2. Story of the prosecution according to the FIR lodged by complainant Ram Singh describes that land of Bharat Singh, which was pledged to Ramswaroop after its redemption it was pledged to Devi Singh, and because of this reason Patwari Ramswaroop was unpleasant with them. Three days earlier, Ramswaroop Patwari, employed at Kapasan came to them and asked, why you have kept your crop in the land. We replied, you have got no land over here, resultantly he threatened and uttered to see us within three days and said our position will be worsened, there is none to open mouth before him, after ultimatum he left. Today when I was carrying meal for my father at 7-7½ to the farm (well), Manohar Singh S/o. Datar Singh Rajput, resident of Kotadi Meela, who was employed with Patwari Ramswaroop, started pursing me, as I arrived near my farm (well), Manohar Singh hoarse coughingly signalled, resultantly Ramswaroop Patwari and his wife Kanta emerged from lurking point, equipped with lathi in their hands. All three besieged me, escaping myself I rushed towards the well, where my father was supervising Mungfalli. All three came there and started beating me and to my father with Lathies, meanwhile, Baal Mukand, Raghunath Singh came there from their farms from vicinity and observing them, the assailants Ramswaroop, Kanta Bai and Manohar Singh fled away. My father felt down suffering injuries. Blood started coming out from his head and arm fingers. He was brought to home and was unconscious, then was taken to Arnod Hospital by tractor but my father succumbed to his injuries mid way, my father is presently at Arnod Hospital and I have come for the information. Legal be done. 3. My father felt down suffering injuries. Blood started coming out from his head and arm fingers. He was brought to home and was unconscious, then was taken to Arnod Hospital by tractor but my father succumbed to his injuries mid way, my father is presently at Arnod Hospital and I have come for the information. Legal be done. 3. Respondent-accused kanta Bai W/o. Ramswaroop Sharma has since died and this information has been taken on record on 11/07/1996, so the matter does not survive against the deceased accused respondent No.2 Smt. Kanta Bai and has been heard against rest of the two surviving respondents accused persons Ramswaroop S/o. Narsinghlal Sharma and Manohar Singh S/o. Datar Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant State has argued that the learned trial Court has committed perversity and error in passing the impugned acquittal order and has not examined the evidence properly. It was distinct that redemption of mortgage from accused Ramswaroop and further getting it pledged with Devi Singh deceased by Bharat, was the reason of animosity. The case of the prosecution is based on ocular evidence and without appreciating correct facts, trial Court has considered petty contradictions, while passing the impugned order and has acquitted the accused persons, so far as admissible and segregatable part of a statement of a hostile evidence is concerned, is to be read and the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be thwarted away in totality. Learned State counsel while referring certain recital of testimony has submitted that the trial Court has passed an incorrect judgment, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, so the appeal be accepted and the finding of the learned trial Court be reversed and the respondents accused person be convicted. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there is no such error in the findings of the learned trial Court. All the main witnesses of the prosecution have become hostile and they have not supported the story of the prosecution. There are vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution. Even, so called complainant son of deceased who has asserted to be present at the place of occurrence has not supported the prosecution version and has become hostile. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned acquittal order after appreciating and evaluating, entire evidence of the prosecution. There are vital contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution. Even, so called complainant son of deceased who has asserted to be present at the place of occurrence has not supported the prosecution version and has become hostile. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned acquittal order after appreciating and evaluating, entire evidence of the prosecution. There is no iota of evidence to be of positive nature. The appeal does not have any force so be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned public prosecutor as well as to the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and have perused and examined the impugned judgment and have carefully gone through the record. 6. The evidence dealt with by the learned trial Court relating to the recovery of the alleged Lathies reflects that Lathi which has been recovered from accused Ramswaroop was witnessed by "Gopal Das" and "Jawaharlal Sharma", and apart from Jawaharlal Sharma, one "Govardhan Singh" was a recovery witness of Ex.P7, detailing recovery of lathi from co-accused Manohar Singh. The contents of FIR discloses that lathi was the main object of assault, but the prosecution has failed to establish recovery of these lathis from the possession and on instance of the accused persons, because PW.8 Gopal Singh has narrated in the cross-examination that I do not remember as to when the recovery was effected. The document was prepared before me and my signature was taken. He has also said that such wands (lathies) are easily available with all the farmers of the Village. Likewise PW.9 Lawahari Lal has also said that ^djhc lky Hkj igys iqfyl dks jkeLo:i ds daq, ls cjken djkbZ Fkh* . This utterance made in chief is not positive because it does not reveal that on whose instance and at what time the said lathi was recovered. In a sheer statement of three lines, the examination in chief is narrated and utterance made in the cross-examination collapses the veracity of the recovery, because Jawahari Lal has stated that "I was called from the road and my signatures were taken". Govardhan Singh has not been produced by the prosecution and this witness has even not been nominated in the list of the witnesses, so the aforesaid factual aspect triggers an inference to conclude that the assault weapon i.e. recovery of the lathies have not been properly proved by dint of positive evidence. Govardhan Singh has not been produced by the prosecution and this witness has even not been nominated in the list of the witnesses, so the aforesaid factual aspect triggers an inference to conclude that the assault weapon i.e. recovery of the lathies have not been properly proved by dint of positive evidence. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, the recovery memos does also not contain the time of the said recoveries. PW.1 Baalmukand, who has been shown to be an eye witness, has also made several contradictory narrations like, "it was dark"......"Devi Singh was being beaten but by which object it was dark", so I could not notice. He has also made a significant say ^eSa o j?kqukFk flag ekSds ij igqWaps rc rd eqfYteku ogka ls Hkkx x;s* this witness has turned "hostile" and has controverted several specific recitals of Ex.P.1 (Parchabayan). In his cross-examination, he has also said that I could not see, who caused the injuries and how much. 7. The spot of event is bit away as shown in Ex.P4 spot map since after protracted Charnut road and even ahead to that there is a public passage leading Sholi to Mavta, MP is there and after that a big chunk of Charnut land is there, subsequent to this 13 is shown to be the farm (Khet) of this witness Baalmukund, if we assess the evidence of PW.11 Balaram then this witness has distinctly said that farm of Baalmukund is located one and half furlong away from the site of the incident. Evaluation of the aforesaid evidence does clearly establishes that it does not render any support to the prosecution. 8. Another eye witness Raghunath Singh PW.4 has also uttered several contradictory recitals and has controverted many statements of Ex.D.1 Police Parcha Bayan. PW.1 Baal Mukand has stated that there was dark at the time of the incident, whereas this witness Raghunath Singh has uttered that it was not dark. Raghunath Singh has said that he watched the event from 10-15 ft. away, whereas PW.11 Balaram Patwari told that the farm (well) of the Raghunath Singh was about 500 ft. away from the event site. This witness has also made a quaint say by saying that I cannot intimate as to which accused person caused injuries to Devi Singh on which part of the body and how much lathies were inflicted. away, whereas PW.11 Balaram Patwari told that the farm (well) of the Raghunath Singh was about 500 ft. away from the event site. This witness has also made a quaint say by saying that I cannot intimate as to which accused person caused injuries to Devi Singh on which part of the body and how much lathies were inflicted. He has also said that deceased Devi Singh is my caste brother. He has further said that the site of the event is open land, whereas the description mentioned on the site map Ex.P.4 says that the incident spot is inside the land of Devi Singh near Tapi and this point has been shown as point No.2 and 1 in Devisingh's Tapi, in view of this narration that the questioned land was open is also not correct. A peculiar statement which diminishes the probative value of the statement of this witness is that he has said ^^eSaus nsoh flag o eqfYteku ds chp fdlh fdLe dk >xM+k gksuk ugha lquk u ns[kk** . He has also denied the contention of Ex.D.1 that he was watering his land by engine. 9. PW.5 Ramsingh is complainant; son of the deceased who is also an injured person has said that Rughunath Singh raised alarm to save, then accused persons fled away, PW.4 is Raghunath Singh who too has said in the cross-examination that ^^eSaus nsoh flag o eqfYteku ds chp fdlh fdLe dk >xM+k gksuk ugha lquk u ns[kk** . He also uttered strange by saying that he cannot say that which accused beaten me on which part of my body and has said that the accused had beaten me on head, whereas Ex.P.5 injury report of Ram Singh reveals simple injuries. Had there been a lathi beating on skull by three persons then the intensity of simple injury would have been acute and grave. In his cross-examination, this witness has also said that they had made a Soya crop storage in Charnut Land which also indicates that injured were trespassers over Government Charnut Land and this land was being used by the complainant family. In his cross-examination, this witness has also said that they had made a Soya crop storage in Charnut Land which also indicates that injured were trespassers over Government Charnut Land and this land was being used by the complainant family. Ram Singh has accepted that Ex.P3 (Parchabayan) does not have any mention of Raghunath Singh's cry and PW.6 witness Radhey Shyam, who has been a recovery seizure witness of Ex.P.5 has only apprised regarding seizure of Saafa and not of other item or takiya and has thus vitiated the FSL Ex.P.17, which does have got a reference of takiya., So, entire evidence of these two witnesses as well, is full of contradictions and there raises a material doubt because this witness has also said that during the event days, Ramswaroop was transferred to Kapasan, which slackens his presence at the place of occurrence. PW.7 Nand Kishore has said nothing important and has denied giving any statements, and utterances of this witness that Balu came and told to him that patwari Sahab and Devi Singh has engaged in scuffle, does not get any corroboration from the evidence of Baalmukand and Raghunath. PW.10 Bharat Singh has only narrated pledging of his land Araji No. 602 to Devi Singh. 10. PW.12 Dr. Naraian Chandra Bose is a medical officer Arnod, who has conducted postmortem and examination of injuries of injured Ram Singh and has said that he had operated the body of the deceased Devi Singh, who had sustained depressed fracture over occipital area and has also made a significant say by saying that injury No.2 to 4 unilaterally or collectively cannot cause death and injury No.1 can be caused by a fall on solid surface. 11. Ex.P.2 Panchayat Nama delineates the description of the dead body and it contains an important recital with respect to the existence of hair on the head of the corpse as the Panchayatnama lays ^^flj ,oa eqWag %& dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k rks e`rd dh nk<+h ,oa f'kj eqMk;k gqvk gS]** whereas Doctor conducting the postmortem has said that I did not remove hairs to examine injury No.1, whereas in his statement this witness has said that injury No.1 was caused on the occipital area of skull and this contradiction is not trifle. 12. 12. PW.13 Tej Singh, Investigator has only narrated chronology of investigation and this witness in his cross-examination has asserted non mentioning of the distance of the farms of Baalmukand and Raghunath from event site and has also not mentioned that from which side witnesses approached and what was the distance of it. PW.2 Naraian Singh is son of the deceased, who has said that afterwords Ram Singh and Baalmukand and Raghunath had come to his home, which is contradicted by these witnesses and he has also said that he was not present at the site of the incident. 13. PW.1 Baalmukand has also said that Smt. Kanta used to veil to cover the face but not always. 14. PW.3 Kesar Singh is a witness of Ex.P.2 Panchnama and this witness has also said that the head of deceased Devi Singh was shaved and there was no hair on the head, which contradicts the statement of Doctor conducting postmortem examination. PW.6 Radhey Shyam is a witness of Ex.P.5 i.e. seizure of Safa, but this witness has said that only Safa was seized, which does not match with Ex.P.5 because it has got a say of Takiya as well which weakens the seizure mentioned in Ex.P.5. PW.7 Nand Kishore is not an eye witness and just narrated that Devi Singh was taken to Arnod by tractor and he did not accompany. 15. It is pertinent to observe that the prosecution has not produced any witness with respect to deposit of the seized samples and recovered articles, which were sent for the forensic examination, so the integral link and chain of the evidence appears to have been shattered. 16. Defence has also produced three witnesses. DW.1 Gopal Lal, who has stated that on 28/11/2010, Ramswaroop was at Pratapgarh and he witnessed him in Pratapgarh in the morning of 29/11/1990 and has also said that till 12 night, he watched movie with accused at his home on 28/11/1990. DW.2 Chatur Bihari Lal has said that he is acquainted with Ram Singh his family and with his wife, wife of accused was suffering for last 8 to 10 years, on 28/11/1990 Ramswaroop had come to me at Kherot in the morning, his wife was also accompanying him, I examined his wife and prescribed medicines, Ex.D.3 is its prescription. DW.2 Chatur Bihari Lal has said that he is acquainted with Ram Singh his family and with his wife, wife of accused was suffering for last 8 to 10 years, on 28/11/1990 Ramswaroop had come to me at Kherot in the morning, his wife was also accompanying him, I examined his wife and prescribed medicines, Ex.D.3 is its prescription. He has also said that I cannot say whether the accused and his wife visited Sholi or not. In the case of Sukliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 16 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- "6. The settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other therefore his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted". 17. In view of, cumulative appraisal of the afore-discussed evidence it comes out that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, even important witnesses relating to recovery of the lathies, allegedly used in assault have not supported the recovery positively. One of the eye witness has turned hostile and another Raghunath Singh PW.4 has even said that he did not watch who caused what kind of injury and has also asserted that he never heard or ever seen scuffle between deceased Devi Singh and accused Ramswaroop. Vital contradictions are there in the evidence of PW.2 Devi Singh injured-son of the deceased. Situation of the agricultural land of eye witness Baalmukand and Raghunath Singh is considerably away from the place of incident. One amongst total trio injuries of the deceased. Vital contradictions are there in the evidence of PW.2 Devi Singh injured-son of the deceased. Situation of the agricultural land of eye witness Baalmukand and Raghunath Singh is considerably away from the place of incident. One amongst total trio injuries of the deceased. Injury No.1 is stated to be on vital part only, which too has been stated to could have been caused by fall on a solid surface by the medical expert conducting autopsy of the deceased. At the time of Panchayatnama, head of the deceased was found shaved (without hair), whereas doctor conducting autopsy on the corpse, states otherwise. A vital lacunae regarding integrity of link evidence with respect to deposit of the seizure exists because the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence with respect to this important aspect. After carefully, scrutinising the evidence on record, as above, we are convinced that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, so we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, acquitting the accused-respondents, hence reluctant to interfere with the same. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.