JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. Both these appeals are filed by the appellants-original accused Nos. 1 to 3 against the judgment and order dated 18.9.2008 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions Case No. 209 of 2006. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Judge has convicted accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307read with Section 114 of IPC and ordered to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment. Accused No. 2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 20 days. Accused No. 2 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the filing of present appeal are as under:- "2.1 It is alleged that on 29.4.2006, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the complainant side with regard to sitting in a tempo. With these allegations, the complaint was given against the accused persons. Thereafter, at about 00.30 hours, by keeping grudge of the said incident, accused No. 3 got angry and gave two kick blows to witness Rakesh. Accused No. 3 also informed about this incident to accused Nos. 1 and 2 by making a phone call. When the complainant was going to drop Rakesh at his home, near the house of Lallubhai Prabhubhai, accused Nos. 1 and 2 intercepted them. Accused No. 1 and 3 caught hold of Rakesh and accused No. 2 gave knife blows on various parts of the body of Rakesh. Therefore, Rakesh started shouting and upon hearing his shouts, one Naresh Shankarbhai and his mother Chanchalben reached there. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 caught hold of said Nareshbhai and accused No. 2 assaulted him with knife. Since the people gathered, accused persons ran away from the place of incident. Naresh Shankar died on the spot. Therefore, Rakesh started shouting and upon hearing his shouts, one Naresh Shankarbhai and his mother Chanchalben reached there. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 caught hold of said Nareshbhai and accused No. 2 assaulted him with knife. Since the people gathered, accused persons ran away from the place of incident. Naresh Shankar died on the spot. With these allegations, a complaint was given against the accused persons. 2.2 Upon filing of the complaint, investigation started. At the end of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Magistrate Court. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court and, ultimately, trial was initiated and charge came to be framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2.3 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses:- S. No. Name Exhibit 1. Kailashbhai Keshavbhai Patel, complainant 22 2. Dr. Devendra Mavjibhai Chaudhary 37 3. Dr. Amit Anandprakash Bindal 40 4. Rakesh Shankar Patel, injured (hostile) 43 5. Chanchalben Shankarbhai Patel (hostile) 44 6. Subhashbhai Keshavbhai Patel (hostile) 45 7. Maheshbhai Keshavbhai Patel (hostile) 46 8. Kamleshbhai Chhaganbhai Patel (hostile) 47 9. Hasmukhbhai Ganpatbhai Patel (hostile) 48 10. Jagdishbhai Dalpatbhai Patel (hostile) 49 11. Durlabhbhai Govindbhai Patel (hostile) 51 12. Balvantbhai Ganpatbhai Patel (hostile) 53 13. Rameshbhai Laljibhai Babariya (hostile) 56 14. Shailesh Parbhubhai Patel (hostile) 58 15. Manish Iswarbhai Chauhan (hostile) 59 16. Rameshbhai Somabhai Patel, I.O. 61 2.4 The prosecution had also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:- S. No. Description Exhibit 1. Complaint 23 2. PM Note 38 3. Cause of Death Certificate 39 4. Treatment Certificate 41 5. Panchnama of the place of offence 50 6. Inquest panchnama 52 7. Arrest panchnama of the accused 57 8. Panchnama of the clothes of deceased 54 9. Panchnama of the clothes of injured 55 10. Panchnama of recovery of mobile of accused-Pradip 60 11. Suchipatra 62 12. Yadi for medical examination of the accused 63 13. Case papers of accused Ranjit Morar 64 14. Case papers of accused-Shailesh Ranjit 65 15. Case papers of accused-Pradip Lallubhai 66 16. Dispatch note 67 17. FSL receipt 68 18. FSL report 69 19. Serological report 70 2.5 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. Case papers of accused Ranjit Morar 64 14. Case papers of accused-Shailesh Ranjit 65 15. Case papers of accused-Pradip Lallubhai 66 16. Dispatch note 67 17. FSL receipt 68 18. FSL report 69 19. Serological report 70 2.5 At the end of trial, the Court below recorded further statements of accused persons under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. and thereafter, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding the sentence to the accused as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court, present appeals are preferred before this Court by accused persons." 3. Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3 has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants. Mr. Qureshi submitted that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants, though there was no substantive piece of evidence found against the appellants. He submitted that all the witnesses, except the doctors and Investigating Officer, have turned hostile and there was no evidence connecting the accused with the crime. He further submitted that the quarrel had taken pla at the time of marriage ceremony and due to intervention of leading persons of the community, a compromise had also taken place between the parties and a purshis in this regard was also filed before the trial Court. He further submitted that though all the witnesses have turned hostile, even in their cross-examination nothing substantial could be brought out by the prosecution. He further submitted that though it is proved by medical evidence and report of FSL that this is a case of homicidal death, there is no corroborative evidence connecting the accused with the crime. He, therefore, prays that these appeals may be allowed by setting aside the conviction of the accused persons. 4. On the other hand, Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the order of conviction recorded against the appellants is just and proper and she has supported the conviction recorded by impugned judgment. She further contended that taking into consideration the evidence on record, the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. She has taken us through PM report, deposition of doctors and the FSL report. She further contended that taking into consideration the evidence on record, the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. She has taken us through PM report, deposition of doctors and the FSL report. She submitted that all these go to show that this is a case of murder and only because a compromise was arrived at between the parties, the accused cannot be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. She, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error while holding the appellants guilty and imposing sentence on the accused and no interference is called for in the present appeals. 5. We have heard Mr. Shakeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the appellants-accused Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State. We have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record. We have gone through the evidence of Dr. Devendra Mavjibhai Chaudhary, PW-2, Exh. 37, who carried out postmortem of the deceased. We have also gone through the postmortem report of the deceased. In column No. 17 of the postmortem report, wherein injuries No. 1 and 2 were stab wounds while there was fracture in the sixth and eighth rib. The reason for death of the deceased was stated to be shock due to hemorrhage as a result of stab wound to left lung. Therefore, this is a case of culpable homicide. We have also gone through the evidence of Dr. Amit Anandprakash Bindal, who treated the injured Rakeshbhai Shankarbhai Patel. He deposed that injuries No. 2 and 3 caused to this injured were stab wound. Therefore, we are required to consider the role of the accused persons. We have gone through the evidence of Kaileshbhai Keshavbhai Patel. Initially the complainant supported the case of the prosecution, however, when he was examined after recalling, he turned hostile and stated that he had not given any complaint with regard to the alleged incident of assault. Even the injured, Rakesh Shankarbhai Patel, who was examined as PW-4, Exh. 43, has also turned hostile and he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. All other witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the injured, Rakesh Shankarbhai Patel, who was examined as PW-4, Exh. 43, has also turned hostile and he has also not supported the case of the prosecution. All other witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that there is no evidence which connects the accused persons with crime. We are of the view that medical evidence could have been used only by way of corroborative evidence. Though the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses, almost all the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and no substantive evidence could be laid against the accused persons. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Once the prosecution case is proved, then only the burden shifts to the accused person to prove his innocence. It is also established principle that in a criminal case if two views are possible, on the evidence adduced in the case, i.e. one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, then the view, which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted. The paramount consideration is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. Conviction of innocent persons without proving the case by the prosecution is, no doubt, result in miscarriage of justice. To avoid miscarriage of justice, the Court is required to rely on cogent, reasonable and trustworthy evidence, which undoubtedly should lead to the only conclusion that none, other than the accused committed the alleged act. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of offence alleged against the accused by cogent reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and, therefore, the accused persons, the accused are required to be granted benefit of doubt and present appeals are required to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence. 6. For the foregoing reasons, both these appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.9.2008 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 209 of 2006 is quashed and set aside. The appellants herein-accused Nos. 1 to 3 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by granting them benefit of doubt. Bail bond, if any, of the accused stands cancelled. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.9.2008 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No. 209 of 2006 is quashed and set aside. The appellants herein-accused Nos. 1 to 3 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by granting them benefit of doubt. Bail bond, if any, of the accused stands cancelled. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith.