JUDGMENT Dr. Vijay Laxmi, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 29.09.1981 passed by the then I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnao acquitting nine accused/respondents, namely, Prem Shanker A-1, Rajendra Prasad A-2, Suresh Chandra @ Pandey A-3, Sheo Raj A-4, Badri Prasad A-5, Buddha A-6, Rasool A-7, Machloo A-8 and Jamil Ahmad A-9 of the charges under Section 147 , 148, 307 r/w 149 and 427 Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.17 of 1980 State Vs Prem Shankar & 8 others . Admittedly, cross case, Sessions Trial No.540 of 1979 State Vs Yudhishthir Singh & 8 others of this case has ended in acquittal and appeal no.403 of 1982 has been filed challenging the said acquittal by the State. 2. The incident occurred on 24.09.1978 at 5.00 p.m. near the house of the complainant, Yudhishthir Singh (hereinafter described as complainant) in village Kusaila where Prem Shanker A-1 alongwith Machloo, Rasool, Jamil Ahmad and Santosh Kumar suffered fire arm injuries. The fire arm injuries were also caused to one calf of Brij Lal who was tethered near the place of incident. The written F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 was lodged by the complainant on the same date at 6.30 p.m. at Police Station Safipur lying 3 km away therefrom. All accused persons were prosecuted under Section 148 I.P.C.. Prem Shanker A-1 was further charged for offence under Section 307 and 427 I.P.C.. The remaining eight accused except Prem Shanker were further charged for offence under Section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. Accused A-2 to A-7 were also charged under Section 147 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The evidence was recorded separately in said trials and separate judgments are delivered by the Trial Court. 3. The respondent accused Buddha died during pendency of this appeal as per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Unnao 25.07.2015. Thus, the appeal has abated against accused Buddha. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are as follows: - The Khand Vikas Adhikari held a meeting of Gaon Sabha on 24.09.1978 at 3.00 p.m. in the primary school of village Kusaila in which many villagers participated including the complainant and the accused Prem Shanker A-1 and his party. Prem Shankar passed several remarks/taunts against the complainant in the meeting on account of old enmity. Prem Shankar passed several remarks/taunts against the complainant in the meeting on account of old enmity. The complainant when objected to it, the accused Prem Shanker and his brothers showered abuses on the complainant. The complainant also retaliated. As a result, Prem Shanker, Rajendra Prasad, Suresh Chandra alias Pandey, Sheoraj, Badri Prasad, Buddha, Rasool and Machloo etc. fled away towards their houses giving a challenge that %hnd1%",d&,d dks vHkh xksfy;ksa ls Hkwurk gwWaA"%hnd2% The complainant got afraid of it and also ran away towards his house. As soon as he reached his door he saw that the accused Prem Shanker with double barrel gun, Jamil with a katta were coming towards the southern window of his boundary wall challenging them. Accused Prem Shanker while standing beneath his chabutra challenged the complainant and fired towards him which probably hit the calf of Brij Lal. Due to firing from the side of the accused, the complainant also fired in air in self defense while being inside his window. Many villagers had seen the terrorising incident from their roof who were crying the words %hnd1%"izse ;s D;k dj jgs gksA"%hnd2% Ram Naresh was one of such villager. Yogendra Kumar Singh, the son of the complainant and Manna Chammar who had also run off from the meeting and had reached the complainant's roof, were also the witness of this incident who raised the outcry. Besides these, many other villagers had also seen the occurrence. The occurrence has taken place at about 5.00 p.m. Afterwards, the complainant along with village chowkidaar Lochhan and his cousin Hari Shanker reached the police station at 6.30 p.m. to lodge report. 5. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came for trial before learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao. Charges were framed against the respondents accused. The accused denied the charges and case came up for trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses in all namely Yudhishthir Singh, PW1, the complainant, Ram Naresh PW2 who was examined as independent witness and other two witnesses were formal in nature. 6. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the respondents claimed innocence. The accused Prem Shanker stated that he himself and four others namely Machloo, Rasool, Jamil and Santosh Kumar were injured by fire arms. 6. In their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the respondents claimed innocence. The accused Prem Shanker stated that he himself and four others namely Machloo, Rasool, Jamil and Santosh Kumar were injured by fire arms. The fire arm injuries were caused to them by the Yudhishthir Singh who lodged false report against the accused in order to defend himself. The accused Rajendra Prasad, Suresh Chand and Badri Prasad stated that they were not present in the meeting and they were falsely implicated due to enmity. Accused Sheo Raj stated that he was witnessed in the cross case pending against Yudhishthir Singh and thus he was falsely implicated. The accused Rasool and Machloo also stated that they were falsely implicated in the case because they sustained injuries during the incident. 7. Before further proceeding, it would be appropriate here to mention about the F.I.R. of cross case as lodged by the accused Prem Shanker on the same date at 6.40 p.m. which is exhibit Kha-12 on record. A meeting of the Gram Sabha of village Kusaila was held on 24.09.1978 at the primary school of village Kusaila which was attended by Prem Shanker, the complainant and the accused Yudhishthir Singh alongwith several villagers. The complainant and Yudhishthir Singh had been having old enmity. During meeting, the complainant put forth a proposal about the construction of village road for connecting their village with the Unnao Hardoi road. The said proposal covered the two agricultural fields of Yudhishthir Singh, who got infuriated at it and started abusing the complainant which culminated into hot talks. The complainant, anticipating the bad intentions of Yudhishthir left the meeting and returned to his house at about quarter past 3 p.m. He found Machloo, Rasool, Jamil Ahmad and Santosh Kumar were present in front of his house and started conversation with them. At about 4P.M., they saw that the accused Yudhishthir Singh and eight others reached the spot with fire arms in their hands. Yudhishthir Singh, Chheda Singh and Yogendra Kumar Singh alias Pappu had single barrel gun, Ganga Bux Singh with his double barrel licensed gun and others with Katta in their hands reached there. Yudhishthir Singh and his accomplices fired shots on the complainant and party to kill them. The complainant, machloo, Rasool, Jamil and Santosh Kumar were all hit by their shots. Yudhishthir Singh and his accomplices fired shots on the complainant and party to kill them. The complainant, machloo, Rasool, Jamil and Santosh Kumar were all hit by their shots. At the same time the calf of Brij Lal who was tethered there near the place of occurrence also received fire arm injuries during this attack. On hearing the noise caused by firing and out cry of victims, the witnesses Sheoraj Prasad and Ram Autar and many others reached the spot and challenged the accused who there upon fled away. The incident had taken place at 4.00 p.m. in the evening. The report was written by the complainant himself who went to the police station Safipur alongwith other injured persons. The written F.I.R. Ext. Ka-1 was lodged by him at Police Station Safipur. 8. As regards the immediate cause of the occurrence, according to the complainant, the accused Prem Shanker had repeatedly passed remarks against him in the meeting of the Gaon Sabha and when he objected to it, the accused Prem Shanker and his brother began to abuse him. When the complainant retaliated by counter abuses, A-1 and party left the venue and ran away to the side of their house threatening them that they would come back and kill each and every one of them. According to complainant, thereupon he also got afraid and went away towards his house. According to Trial court whole of this version did not appeal to reason. To quote the relevant observations of the Trial court: Apparently, the complainant's claim in this behalf tended to become highly exaggerated. The prosecution, however, did not produce any eye witness to support its version about what had happened in the Gaon Sabha meeting in question. The meeting was attended by 40 or 50 persons as claimed by the witness, but even then not a single other witness was produced to narrate all that had happened in the meeting vis-a-vis the hot exchanges in between Yudhishthir Singh and Prem Shanker. 9. The Trial court disbelieved the version of the two witnesses, namely, the complainant Yudhishthir Singh and Ram Naresh PW2 examined by the prosecution observing that there were considerable discrepancies in their versions in respect of material points. 9. The Trial court disbelieved the version of the two witnesses, namely, the complainant Yudhishthir Singh and Ram Naresh PW2 examined by the prosecution observing that there were considerable discrepancies in their versions in respect of material points. The following reasons are cited by Trial court for disbelieving it: In the complainant's F.I.R. it was mentioned that he had come to the police station at 6.30 p.m. alongwith the written report. He, however, admitted to have written this report while he was at his own house and he denied to have written the report at the police station. But then if the complainant had actually written his report at his house, in that case he could not have stipulated there in that he had arrived at the police station at 6.30 p.m. This sentence clearly indicated that he had written the report at the police station itself. On being confronted in this behalf the complainant tried to explain that in as much as he had left his house at 5.30 p.m. and as one hour's time was taken in reaching the police station Safipur he had anticipated the time of his arrival at the police station and hence wrote out the time as 6.30. p.m. in the report written at this own house. It must be observed that such an explanation was not only absurd on the face of it, but totally unconvincing. Again, the complainant admitted that while he was writing his report, he had been shown that the bull calf of Brij Lal had received injuries by firing done by the accused Prem Shankar. But then strangely enough in the report in question he had stipulated that probably Brij Lal's calf had received gun shot wounds due to the firing in question. If the complainant was sure about this fact and as admitted by him, in that case he ought not to have used the word ''probably'. On being confronted with this anomaly the complainant stated that due to nervousness and hurry he had written out the word ''probably'. Apparently the explanation was unconvincing. Again, in his report he had not stipulated that he had also fired one or two shots towards the accused and he duly asserted that at that time he had done no air firing, but even then in his report he had stipulated that he had done firing in air. Apparently the explanation was unconvincing. Again, in his report he had not stipulated that he had also fired one or two shots towards the accused and he duly asserted that at that time he had done no air firing, but even then in his report he had stipulated that he had done firing in air. For this discrepancy also the complainant had no good explanation to advance. In the circumstances, there would be force in the defence suggestion that the original report as written by him had been substituted by another report. The complainant duly admitted that in the two reports (one report on whose basis chiq F.I.R. was prepared and the other report was Ext.Ka-1 as filed by himself in the case, there existed the following discrepancies. In his report the names of four accused were mentioned and they were Prem Shankar, Badri Prasad, Sheoraj and Jamil, but in the other chiq report only two names were mentioned and they were Prem Shankar and Jamil. On being asked to explain the discrepancy he stated that the police officer was responsible for the same. It must be observed that the explanation of the complainant was totally unsatisfactory and he must be blamed for having committed some kind of interpolation some where thereby rendering his version all the more unbelievable. The complainant admitted that in his presence the accused Prem Shankar, Rajendra Prasad, Suresh and Santosh Kumar had reached the police station, but then stated that he had not seen their clothes. Their clothes had been besmeared with blood on account of numerous gun shot injuries received by them, and so the witness ought to have certainly taken note of the fact that they had received injuries. The witness, however, tried to explain the anomaly by saying that he had been sitting at a distance of 15 or 16 paces from them, and therefore, he had not been able to see their clothes. The complainant also stated that after the meeting when he had reached his door he had not seen any of the accused, but then in the report he had clearly stipulated that when he reached his door, he had seen the accused Prem Shankar carrying a double barrel gun in his hand and while throwing challenge. On being asked to explain this anomaly, the witness kept quiet and did not answer for some time. On being asked to explain this anomaly, the witness kept quiet and did not answer for some time. Of course afterwards he stated that due to hurry and nervousness he had stipulated the above fact. He claimed that as soon as he returned to his door with his gun, the accused were about 35 or 40 paces from his door and that as soon as he rushed up to close his door, the accused fired shots towards himself. There was, however, found no pellet marks in his door and on being asked in that behalf he stated that these pellets had injured the bull calf of Brij Lal. All this claim again seemed unreasonable because some kind of pellets ought to have hit his door also. The testimony of PW2 Ram Naresh also suffered from similar kind of discrepancies. He stated that the shot fired by the complainant was towards the accused Prem Shankar, but then before the I.O. he had stated that the complainant had fired shot in the air. As many as five accused persons had received gun shot injuries in the firing at the same time, but then the complainant made no mention about it in his original report. His original claim that he had done firing in the air to scare off the accused who were advancing towards himself with fire arms was given up by him and in this Court he stated that he had done the firing in private defence. A person making such about turns in his story could hardly be believed in the version of occurrence as given by him. 10. According to Trial court it appeared that the occurrence had not taken place exactly in the same manner as claimed by the prosecution side. Apparently the complainant had been in a safe position because of his being inside his outer door (described as Khirki in the evidence), but the accused had been rather in open space in front of the door of the accused Prem Shankar. The unlucky side was that the five accused persons received fire arm injuries, but that the side of the complainant remained uninjured. The unlucky side was that the five accused persons received fire arm injuries, but that the side of the complainant remained uninjured. Trial Court has observed and rightly so that due to manipulations of version it was difficult to determine that the accused might have been the aggressor or that accused party had fired the first shot and the prosecution has not been successful in bringing home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11. The above narration of the version of both the sides revealed that the incident had taken place on 24.09.1978 in the afternoon. According to the complainant the time of the incident was 5.00 p.m., while according to the defence it was 4.00 p.m. which difference deserves to be ignored. However, the report was also lodged by the two parties with the difference of 10 minutes. Yudhishthir Singh lodged the report at 6.30 p.m. The Prem Shankar got it lodged at 6.40 p.m. The contention of the prosecution is that Prem Shanker and his party attempted his murder due to what had happened in the meeting of Gram Sabha. The Prem Shanker and party were alleged to be the aggressors. As against it, according to the respondent accused, Yudhishthir and party were the actual aggressors who twisted the facts in the F.I.R. concealing the actual position. The accused respondent were thus entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 12. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant State that the trial Court's judgment proceeded on surmises and conjectures and was based on totally inappropriate appreciation of the evidence. Relevant aspects were not considered and irrelevant aspects were taken into account. It is concluded that respondents accused were liable to be convicted. 13. On the contrary, Learned Counsel for the respondents accused submitted that the aspects highlighted by the trial Court to record acquittal should not be interfered by the High Court when the view taken by the trial Court was not perverse and was a possible view. It is contended that according to the prosecution itself, no injury was sustained by Yudhishthir Singh or any member of his party. It is not the case of the prosecution that owner of the calf, Brij Lal lodged any report against the accused Prem Shanker for causing fire arm injury to his calf. It is contended that according to the prosecution itself, no injury was sustained by Yudhishthir Singh or any member of his party. It is not the case of the prosecution that owner of the calf, Brij Lal lodged any report against the accused Prem Shanker for causing fire arm injury to his calf. The accused Prem Shanker, Rajendra Prasad and Suresh Chand are real brothers and accused Badri Prasad is their uncle. Accused Rasool and Machloo were real brothers whose father Buddha died during pendency of this appeal. The accused Jamil is cousin of accused Rasool. The accused were falsely implicated in this case by Yudhishthir Singh to defend himself. 14. The injuries of five injured accused persons were subjected to medical examination on 24.09.1978. The injury reports are exhibit Kha-7 to Kha-11 on record. From evidence on record it is established that the accused Prem Shanker and four others, namely, Machloo, Rasool, Jamil and Santosh Kumar were injured by fire arms. Prem Shanker sustained five injuries including injuries on the scalp. Machloo received four injuries including injury on right upper arm. Santosh Kumar sustained three injuries including injury on left thigh. Jamil got injured with six fire arm injuries including injury on the frontal bone. Rasool sustained three injuries including injury on right cheek. All the injuries were caused by fire arm. 15. It is not disputed that the fire arm injuries were also caused to one calf of Brij Lal who was tethered near the place of incident. the prosecution has filed certified copy exhibit Kha-7 of medical examination report of calf which was prepared by Dr. R.P. Sharma, the then Live Stock Development Officer, Safipur on 26.09.1978 at 2.00 p.m. The doctor found six injuries on the body of bull calf including fire arm injury on knee joint, compound fracture of radius and alna bone of right side, on left chest, on left abdomen. No FIR was lodged by Brij Lal and A-1. 16. The complainant stated in FIR that at the time of the incident he made a fire in air in his private defence. But in cross examination he admitted that he made two fire towards accused. He further stated that he did not make any fire in the air and it was wrongly transcribed in the FIR due to confusion. 16. The complainant stated in FIR that at the time of the incident he made a fire in air in his private defence. But in cross examination he admitted that he made two fire towards accused. He further stated that he did not make any fire in the air and it was wrongly transcribed in the FIR due to confusion. To quote the words of the complainant : - %hnd1%fQj eSaus vius cpko esa ,d ;k nks Qk;j fd;s FksA bu yksxksa dh rjQ fd;s FksA--------- c`t yky dk eSaus uke izR;{kn'khZ xokg ds rkSj ij blfy, ugha fy[kk;k D;ksafd og izse 'kadj ds lkFk mBrk cSBrk FkkA tYnh o ?kcjkgV esa eSaus fjiksVZ esa ;g ckr ugha fy[kk;h fd eSaus eqyfteku dh rjQ ,d nks Qk;j fd;s FksA eSaus ml le; dksbZ gokbZ Qk;j ugha fd;s FksA ?kcjkgV esa eSaus viuh fjiksVZ esa vius }kjk gokbZ Qk;j djus dh ckr fy[kk nh FkhA%hnd2% 17. The defence of the respondents, therefore, could not have been wished away. In a case of this nature, it was necessary on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the part of the accused. The investigation of the entire cases and particularly in regard to the fact that there were cross cases, a fair investigation was expected. The possibility of PW-1 being the aggressor cannot be ruled out. It would bear repetition to state that complainant had been bearing grudge against A-1 and party and why the complainant could not stick to his version of FIR of air firing during cross examination where he stated that he did not do air firing but fired 1-2 shots towards accused had not properly been explained by the prosecution. 18. On proper evaluation of the trial court judgment, we hold that the view taken by the trial court was certainly a possible or a plausible view. It is a well settled legal position that when the view which has been taken by the trial court is a possible view, then the acquittal cannot be set aside by merely substituting its reasons by the High Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Surajpal Singh and Ors. v. State, AIR 1952 SC 52 , has spelt out the powers of the High Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Surajpal Singh and Ors. v. State, AIR 1952 SC 52 , has spelt out the powers of the High Court. The Supreme Court has also reminded the High Courts to follow well established norms while dealing with appeals from acquittal by the trial court. The Supreme Court observed as under: It is well established that in an appeal under Section 417 Criminal P.C., the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well-settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused was further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. 19. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles and observed that presumption of innocence of accused is reinforced by an order of the acquittal. The appellate court could have interfered only for very substantial and compelling reasons. The law succinctly crystallized in this case has been consistently followed in subsequent judgments. 20. In TulsiramKanu v. TheState, AIR 1954 SC 1 , the Supreme Court explicated that the appellate court would be justified in reversing the acquittal only when very substantial question and compelling reasons are present. In this case, the Court used a different phrase to describe the approach of an appellate court against an order of acquittal. There, the Sessions Court expressed that there was clearly reasonable doubt in respect of the guilt of the accused on the evidence put before it. Kania, C.J., observed that it required good and sufficiently cogent reasons to overcome such reasonable doubt before the appellate court came to a different conclusion. 21. The same principle has been followed in Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad, (2002) 6 SCC 470 , the Supreme Court dealt with the settled principles of law restated by several decisions of Supreme Court. In appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. 21. The same principle has been followed in Harijana Thirupala and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad, (2002) 6 SCC 470 , the Supreme Court dealt with the settled principles of law restated by several decisions of Supreme Court. In appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. The Court said: The High Court would not be justified to interfere with the order of acquittal merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court it would have proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on the HighCourt while reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If the High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious infirmity. 22. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. (See Bhagwan Singh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002CriLJ2024). The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 1973CriLJ1783 , Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat 1996 (4) Supreme 167 , Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana 2000CriLJ2212 , Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003 (7) Supreme 152 , State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh 2003CriLJ3892 and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr., 2003CriLJ5010 and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and Anr., 2004CriLJ628 . 23. In Dhanapal Vs. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, 2009 (67) ACC 697 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterated the following principles in this regard: 1. 2003 (7) Supreme 152 , State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh 2003CriLJ3892 and State of Punjab v. Pohla Singh and Anr., 2003CriLJ5010 and Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal and Anr., 2004CriLJ628 . 23. In Dhanapal Vs. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, 2009 (67) ACC 697 (SC), the Supreme Court reiterated the following principles in this regard: 1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial court. 3. The appellate court should always keep in mind that the trial court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 4. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. 5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courtsppellate courts must rule in favour of the accused. 24. We have considered the entire evidence and documents on record and the reasoning given by the trial court for acquitting the accused in the light of above principles and we find no reason for reversal of the judgment of acquittal. The version given by the eye witnesses against the accused person being highly exaggerated, contrary to each other and from FIR, in our opinion, the prosecution has not presented true version on most of the material parts. Therefore, the witnesses and material placed on their side does not inspire confidence and cannot be accepted on its face value. 25. Since we find the prosecution evidence not consistent and reliable qua respondent accused, namely, Prem Shanker A-1, Rajendra Prasad A-2, Surendra Chandra Pandey A-3, Sheo Raj A-4, Badri Prasad A-5, Buddha A-6, Rasool A-7, Machloo A-8 and Jamil Ahmad A-9 and hence they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 26. For these reasons, appeal stands dismissed. 25. Since we find the prosecution evidence not consistent and reliable qua respondent accused, namely, Prem Shanker A-1, Rajendra Prasad A-2, Surendra Chandra Pandey A-3, Sheo Raj A-4, Badri Prasad A-5, Buddha A-6, Rasool A-7, Machloo A-8 and Jamil Ahmad A-9 and hence they are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 26. For these reasons, appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment of learned trial Court stands confirmed.