JUDGMENT : ANANT S. DAVE, J. The State of Gujarat/the appellant and original complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.6.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer and 7th Fast Track Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2004 whereby respondents are acquitted of offence under Section 143, 395, 454, 435, 436, 205 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that Chandubhai Jamalbhai is the complainant. He was resident of Linch village situated in Mahesana Taluka. He registered a complaint on 2.3.2002 before Laghnanj Police Station being I-C.R No. 34 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 395, 454, 435, 436, 205 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant is of 55 years of age and is doing the agricultural activities and has been residing with his family. His brother is having a land admeasuring 30 vigha in Linch village. His nephew is residing near him. Pursuant to the ‘Godhra carnage’ there was Gujarat Bandh and alleged unfortunate incident took place on 2.3.2002 At about 2 to 3 O'Clock at noon a mob of Hindu community came where the complainant was residing. They caused damage to the property and were pelting stones. They also committed robbery. The people started running. So many persons suffered injury. Therefore, the offence was registered. On completion of the investigation the opponents accused faced trial being Sessions Case No. 163 of 2004 before 7th Fast Track Judge, Mahesana. The case of the opponents accused was of total denial. The learned Presiding Officer and 7th Fast Track Judge, Mahesana passed judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.6.2005 3. Mr. J.M Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that all 12 witnesses examined by prosecution and particularly P.W 3 Kasambhai Jumasha Diwan, P.W.4 Rasulbhai Ismailbhai Achava, P.W.5 Chandubhai Jamalbhai Achava, P.W.6 Mustufa Ismailbhai, P.W.7 Rosanali Amjadali Fakir all have supported the case of the prosecution and identified accused. Mr. J.M Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that all 12 witnesses examined by prosecution and particularly P.W 3 Kasambhai Jumasha Diwan, P.W.4 Rasulbhai Ismailbhai Achava, P.W.5 Chandubhai Jamalbhai Achava, P.W.6 Mustufa Ismailbhai, P.W.7 Rosanali Amjadali Fakir all have supported the case of the prosecution and identified accused. That identification of accused before the Court is inspiring confidence, trustworthy and, therefore, reliable and for the incident of 2.3.2002 which took place around 14:00 hours to 15:00 hours at village Linch accused persons formed unlawful assembly, pelted stones on minority community, houses were set to fire, caused damage to religious places and committed loot of valuable articles, ornaments stand proved by prosecution, for which, only corroboration was available even from police witnesses including investigating officer P.W.10 Babulal Maganlal Gauva. Considering the atmosphere of lawlessness prevailing pursuant to incident of burning of S-6 coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra Railway Station in some part of the State of Gujarat communal riots had taken place and complainant, victims and other witnesses of minority community were not able to lodge the complaint before the police authorities and in the facts of this case after 4 days of the incident on 6.3.2002 written complaint was lodged by complainant before Dy. Superintendent of Police naming 19 accused and the investigation carried out resulting into filing of charge-sheet but unfortunately learned trial Judge has not believed the case of the prosecution and therefore, this Court exercising appellate power has to scrutinize and appreciate the entire record and acquittal order passed by learned trial Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. While taking us to the record of the case learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied at Exh.71 list of Muddamal articles, Exh.75 Panchanama drawn on 3.3.2002, Exh.76 P.W No. 1-Shankarbhai Maljibhai Desai (panch to the place of incident-hostile) Exh.77 Panchnama of place showing damage drawn on 3.3.2002, Exh.78 P.W.2 Baldevbhai Ramjibhai Parmar-Second panch to the scene of offence, Exh.82-application for further investigation by the complainant and emphasised that following prosecution witnesses had identified Kasambhai Jumasha Diwan Exh.103 P.W.3, Rasulbhai Ismailbhai Achava Exh.106 P.W.4, Chandubhai Jamalbhai Achava Exh.107 P.W.5, Mustufa Ismailbhai Exh. 111 P.W.6, Shajidbhai Gulamrasul Ghanchi Exh.116 P.W.8, Shamalbhai Jethabhai Exh.117 P.W.9, Babulal Maganlal Gauva Exh.118 P.W.10, Ramanbhai Kalabhai Exh.120 P.W.11, Babubhai Motibhai Parmar Exh.121 P.W.12 respectively. 5. 111 P.W.6, Shajidbhai Gulamrasul Ghanchi Exh.116 P.W.8, Shamalbhai Jethabhai Exh.117 P.W.9, Babulal Maganlal Gauva Exh.118 P.W.10, Ramanbhai Kalabhai Exh.120 P.W.11, Babubhai Motibhai Parmar Exh.121 P.W.12 respectively. 5. The above identification of accused and incident of crime, participation by accused stand confirmed by P.W.9, a Head Constable of Laghnanj Police Station, P.W.10 Babulal Maganlal Gauva, Investigating Officer Exh.118 etc. and huge damage was caused to household items, houses and religious places and in specific terms accused No. 1 having possession of gun, accused No. 5 having revolver, accused No. 45 having sword and accused No. 19 had provided kerosene for setting fire to the properties belonging to the minority community were identified and therefore, the order of acquittal cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. In support of arguments learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Probodh Purkait v. State of W.B, [ (2007) 9 SCC 172 ] and submitted that evidence and eye witnesses is not to be discarded by the Court simply because number of persons were named to be part of unlawful assembly. 7. Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate, appearing for the respondents however would contend that the trial Court has examined, analyzed, discussed and carefully considered entire evidence and found no case against respondents of involvement in the crime so alleged, in absence of any infirmity or any illegality this Court exercising powers under Section 376 and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will be loath in interfering with unproved facts and a plausible view adopted by the trial Court of no guilt of the accused. 8. It is submitted that broadly there is a delay in disclosure of names of accused persons in view of no name disclosed initially on 2.3.2002 and thereafter on 6.3.2002, 19 accused were named first time. Thereafter on 9.3.2002 when further statements were recorded by investigating officer another disclosure of addition of 24 accused appeared on record and eventually charge-sheet was filed against 47 accused persons. It is submitted that six eye witnesses had first time identified accused in the Court who hailed from the same village. Thereafter on 9.3.2002 when further statements were recorded by investigating officer another disclosure of addition of 24 accused appeared on record and eventually charge-sheet was filed against 47 accused persons. It is submitted that six eye witnesses had first time identified accused in the Court who hailed from the same village. Further no T.I Parade was conducted by the prosecution and failure to carry out T.I Parade will be contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagaraj v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Tamil Nadu, [(2015) 4 SCC739] and State of Maharashtra v. Syed Umar Sayed Abbas, [(2016) 4 SCC735]. 9. It is vehemently contended that eye witnesses are not of sterling quality and version given by them even in the Court they failed to attribute any specific role or overtact to any of the accused barring three accused who were named with weapons like revolver, sword and stick etc. For about 4 days no statement of eye witnesses was recorded by the I.O And only with a view of falsely implicate number of villagers they were named later on by the complainant. Learned advocate for the respondent has also drawn our attention to infirmities in the testimonies of Police Sub Inspector of Mr. Goya and submitted that there was complete absence of scientific opinion about alleged loot and arsan of house and religious places. It is submitted that there was no disclosure or recovery of articles looted and even damage caused by accused persons was not proved at all. 10. The cumulative appreciation of evidence by the trial Court resulting into acquittal, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 11. It is submitted that there was no disclosure or recovery of articles looted and even damage caused by accused persons was not proved at all. 10. The cumulative appreciation of evidence by the trial Court resulting into acquittal, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 11. Learned advocate for the respondents also relied on decision in the case of Peerappa v. State of Karnataka, [ (2005) 12 SCC 461 ] and submitted that when presence of alleged eye witnesses at the place of occurrence doubted by the trial Court, it cannot be said that such view taken by the trial Court is irrelevant and version of eye witnesses as to watching of the incident by standing under a tree nearby and minutely observing the details of the attack is highly improbable and cannot be believed as tendency of a person placed in the position of the witness would have been to run away from that place or to intervene and try to dissuade the assailants from attacking the deceased. So are the facts on the case on hand and none of the witnesses behaved as expected of the normal human being and continued to remain present inspite of the mob containing more than 500 persons armed with deadly weapons indulging into violence. 12. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, [ (2010) 13 SCC 657 ] in support of arguments that the appellate Court in normal course should not review the opinion formed by the trial Court about credibility of witnesses after considering entire evidence and when testimonies of eye witnesses suffered from material contradictions, inconsistencies, improvement and embellishments which go to the root of the case rendering evidence unreliable resulting into acquittal of accused again warranting no interference. 13. Thus according to learned advocate for the respondents, the appeal deserves to be rejected and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court be confirmed. 14. 13. Thus according to learned advocate for the respondents, the appeal deserves to be rejected and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court be confirmed. 14. Having heard learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the respondents, on perusal and consideration of entire record of the case and the judgment under challenge, we find that there is a delay in disclosure of names of the accused persons and complainant and other victims were under police protection and shifted to a safer place and no names were disclosed on 2.3.2002 After four days before DSP Mehsana, 19 persons were named and later on in a further statement recorded on 9.3.2002, 24 other persons were added. Thus, not naming accused persons though belonging to same village and in fact no threat was given and complainant and other victims were under police protection, such failure of not disclosing names of accused immediately creates doubt about version of the complainant and other eye witnesses. Besides, version of complainant and other eye witnesses do not attribute any specific role or overt act to any of the accused except three who were shown to have possessed revolver and sword etc. That no test identification parade was held and further conduct and behaviour of eye witnesses to stand by the place of loot and arsan by violent mob again runs contrary to the expected behaviour of ordinary human being inasmuch as the person similarly situated both of eye witnesses in the present case having seen violent mob with deadly weapons either would prefer to run away but under no circumstances remain unfazed and witness the crime till it is over. To the extent as above, unnatural conduct of eye witnesses make dent into trustworthiness and creditworthiness of such witnesses. No scientific evidence is taken with regard to presence of Kerosene in burning household items and damage caused to the properties remain not proved. Even description of mob consisting of 400 to 500 people assembled with deadly arms is also not borne out from the record. Complainant-P.W.5 at Exh.107 is not consistent about manner in which crime had taken place and also not confirming presence of either eye witnesses Kasambhai Jumasha Diwan P.W.3 at Exh. Even description of mob consisting of 400 to 500 people assembled with deadly arms is also not borne out from the record. Complainant-P.W.5 at Exh.107 is not consistent about manner in which crime had taken place and also not confirming presence of either eye witnesses Kasambhai Jumasha Diwan P.W.3 at Exh. 103, Rasulbhai Ismailbhai Achava P.W.4 Exh.106, Mustufa Ismailbhai P.W.6 Exh.111 and Roasanali Amjadali Fakir P.W.7 Exh.114 again failed to describe about theft of household items by the accused or setting household items on fire. Various panchas have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, case of the prosecution of damaging the properties including religious places was not proved beyond reasonable doubt including that of accused confirming unlawful assembly or members thereof and learned trial Judge in details has considered and discussed testimonies and documentary evidence surfaced on record, taking a definite view about no guilt of the accused and failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and keeping in mind law laid down in this regard about powers of the appellate Court under Section 378 read with Section 386 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and decision of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Singh v. State of Haryana, [ (2015) 6 SCC 268 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra, [ (2010) 13 SCC 657 ], no case is made out. Hence, appeal is rejected. 15. The Judgment and order dated 16.6.2005 passed by learned Presiding Officer and 7th Fast Track Judge, Mahesana in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2004, by which, respondent/ original accused is acquitted of offences under Sections 143, 395, 454, 435, 436, 205 of Indian Penal Code, is confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. R & P to be send back to the trial Court forthwith.