Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 58 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Adambhai Hasambhai Multani

2017-01-12

A.J.SHASTRI, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The appellant - State has filed both criminal appeals against the judgment and order, dated 28.10.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Sessions Case Nos. 192 of 2000 and 193 of 2000. Since both the sessions cases have arisen out of the same incident and on account of that incident only, cross cases have come up, the evidences also almost to be appreciated in common and therefore, these criminal appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In so far as the Sessions Case No. 192 of 2000 is concerned, the facts of prosecution case are as under : 2.1 That prior to two years of the incident, the father of the complainant had purchased 20 vigha land from Ismilbhai Hajibhai Pinjara, which is known as "Munkhushiyu". That on 7.3.2000 at 7.00 O'clock in the morning, the complainant Parsottambhai, his father Karshanbhai, his uncle Laxmanbhai, his brother Vithalbhai and Jivrajbhai went to the farm for the purpose of cultivating, at that time at about 7.45 hours, the accused Hasam Haji with a stick, accused Adam Hasam with a pipe and accused Gulab Hasam with an iron pipe came there and told the complainant that as to why they are cultivating our land. Thereupon, the complainant told them that prior to the two years the said farm was purchased by my father and was mutated. On this fact, the accused got excited and started giving foul abuses. That accused Hasam Haji inflicted a stick blow on the head of the complainant and complainant fall down. That said accused has also inflicted another blow on the right hand of the complainant. That accused Adam Hasan inflicted pipe blow on the left leg of the complainant. That accused Gulab Hasam also started giving kick and fist blows to the complainant and also inflicted iron pipe blow on the left leg of the complainant. On seeing the father of the complainant, his brother and his uncle, the accused ran away from the place of the incident. 2.2 Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the dispensary of Dr. Maheshwari, who informed about the incident and thereupon, the complainant had given complaint before the Jamnagar City "B" Division Police Station. As the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of Kalavad Taluka, the said case was transferred to the Kalavad Police Station. 2.2 Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the dispensary of Dr. Maheshwari, who informed about the incident and thereupon, the complainant had given complaint before the Jamnagar City "B" Division Police Station. As the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of Kalavad Taluka, the said case was transferred to the Kalavad Police Station. The police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalavad, but as the Section 307 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. 3. Whereas, with respect to Sessions Case No. 193 of 2000, the facts in summary are reproduced hereinafter : 3.1 That in the sim of village there is a field admeasuring 40 vighas known as "Mujkhushiya". That one and half years prior to the incident, the brother of the complainant i.e. Ismail Haji sold the said field to the accused No. 1 Karshan Gopa. That the complainant Hasam Haji has filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Kalavad for the purpose of sale transaction of the said field. The further prosecution case is that on 3.7.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. in the morning, the complainant Hasam Haji and his two brothers namely Aadam and Gulab went to the field for ploughing. At that time, the accused No. 1 Karshan Gopa and his brothers were ploughing the adjacent filed of the complainant, which is known as "Munikhushiya". That on seeing them, the complainant told them that he has filed a suit in the court in respect of very field and despite the said fact why they were ploughing the said field. On hearing this, the present accused got excited and started giving foul abuses. That the accused No. 2 Parsottambhai gave an iron pipe blow on the leg of the complainant Hasam Haji and thereby the complainant fell down. That when son of the complainant i.e. Aadam intervened to save the complainant, the accused No. 2 also gave a pipe blow on the left shoulder of Aadam. That the accused No. 1 Karshanbhai gave stick blows on the back and left hand of the complainant. Thereafter, as the son of the complainant i.e. Gulab Hasam intervened, the accused went away to their field. That as the complaint received injuries, his sons namely Aadam and Gulab took him to the hospital. That the accused No. 1 Karshanbhai gave stick blows on the back and left hand of the complainant. Thereafter, as the son of the complainant i.e. Gulab Hasam intervened, the accused went away to their field. That as the complaint received injuries, his sons namely Aadam and Gulab took him to the hospital. On these facts, the complaint was filed with the Police and the police after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheeted the accused respondents for the aforesaid offence. 4. In both the cases, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. With a view to prove the case, the prosecution has in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2000 led the evidence in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence and several witnesses have been examined as under : Sr. No. PW No. Name Exh. 1 1 Parsottambhai Karsanbhai 8 2 2 Vitthalbhai Karsanbhai 9 3 3 Jamanbhai Ghunsabhai 11 4 4 Mulji Batuk 12 5 5 Salim Gafar 13 6 6 Nurmamad Alimamad 14 7 7 Jarambhai Jivrajbhai 15 8 8 Lakhmanbhai Gopabhai 16 9 9 Harshadbhai Girdharlal 19 10 10 Narshi Popatbhai 20 11 11 Bharatsinh Manubhai Jadeja 24 12 12 Rajubhai Kanaiyalal Joshi 27 13 13 Maheshbhai Visabhai Gadhavi 29 14 14 Pratapsingh Bhurabhai Parmar 32 15 15 Dr. Mitesh Narshibhai Bhanderi 37 16 16 Yashwantray Pranshankar Joshi 40 17 17 Husain Lukmanji 45 18 18 Dr. Kishor Sajanmal Maheshwari 47 19 19 Talshibhai Manjibhai Dholakia 53 Following documentary evidence have been led : 1 Complaint 30 2 Letter of intimation by Dr. Maheshwari to PSI Certificate 31 3 Station Diary Entry 34 4 Panchnama of place of incident 54 5 Arrest and Discovery Panchnama of accused 55, 56 6 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of the injured 57 7 Xerox copy of report as to adding of Section 307 of IPC sent to the JMFC. 58 8 Xerox copy of Yadi sent to Dr. Maheshwari in respect of giving injury certificate of complainant. 48 9 Original injury certificate of Parsottam Karshan given by Dr. 58 8 Xerox copy of Yadi sent to Dr. Maheshwari in respect of giving injury certificate of complainant. 48 9 Original injury certificate of Parsottam Karshan given by Dr. Maheshwari 49 10 Xerox copies of medial papers in respect of Paarsottam Karsan as an indoor patent 50 11 Yadi to the medical officer on respect of getting blood samples of the accused 38, 39 12 Yadi to the medical officer on respect of getting blood samples of the injured 35 13 Original letter written by DSP to the PSI, Kalavad pursuant to the application of residents of village Mota Vadala 59 14 Original application of resident of village Mota Vada given to DSP 60 15 Copy of village from No. 8A as well as 7/12 in respect of land of Karsan Gopa 21-22 16 Xerox copy of documents and registration of agricultural land of Karsan Gopa 25 17 Yadi in respect of preparing map of place of incident sent to Mamlatdar 41 18 Forwarding letter along with map of Mamlatdar 44 19 Letter of Circle Officer along with map 43 20 Map of incident 42 21 Yadi sent to FSL for analysis of muddamal 61 22 Copy of authority letter and sample to FSL 62 23 Office copy of letter as to sending of muddamal to the FSL 63 24 Receipt of FSL 64 25 Original forwarding letter of FSL 65 26 PM Report by FSL 66 27 Serological report along with forwarding letter by FSL 67 28 Serological report of FSL 68 4.1 Whereas the prosecution has in Sessions Case No. 193 of 2000 led the evidence in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence and several witnesses have been examined as under :- Sr. No. PW No. Name Exh. 1 1 Hasam Haji 9 2 2 Husain Lukmanji 21 3 3 Dr. No. PW No. Name Exh. 1 1 Hasam Haji 9 2 2 Husain Lukmanji 21 3 3 Dr. Laljibhai Becharbhai Sangani 24 4 4 Adam Hasam Multani 31 5 5 Damjibhai Dahyabhai 40 6 6 Gafar Daud Multani 41 7 7 Gulab Hasam Multani 42 8 8 Vallabhbhai Bavanjibhai 43 9 9 Talshibhai Manjibhai Dholakiya 44 Following documentary evidence have been led : 1 Complaint 45 2 Injury certificate in respect of complainant 26 3 Injury certificate in respect of injured witness – Kasam 28 4 Yadi as to registering of complaint 46 5 Panchnama of place of incident 32 6 Arrest Panchnamas of accused 48-49 7 Notification as to prohibition of use of weapon 33 5. After leading the evidence, a closure pursis has been given and then, an opportunity was given to the accused for giving further statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and since the accused having denied the commission of crime, the case was then examined at length by framing the issues. Considering the overall materials on record and after examining the same, the trial court vide judgment and order dated 28.10.2005 was pleased to acquit the respondent - accused by giving benefit of doubt by exercising jurisdiction under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C in both the cases. It is this judgment and order which is made the subject matter of present criminal appeals by the appellant - State and the same has come up for final disposal. 6. Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned APP for the appellant - State has vehemently contended that the accused persons have been charged with serious offence under Section 307 and allied sections and therefore, the trial court ought not to have given a cursory look to the evidence on record. Learned APP has further contended that since there are cross cases, the presence of the accused persons have been established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, there need not be any corroborative factor requires to be pin-pointed. It is also contended by learned APP that the witnesses have specifically stated that scuffle has taken place in which both the sides have taken active part in commission of crime and the weapons which have been used, have also been recovered and therefore, when the recovery is proved and the presence is proved in commission of crime, there was hardly any reason available for the trial court to take a different view. It is also pointed out that while giving the acquittal to the accused persons by giving benefit of doubt, the trial court has not cogently assigned any reason nor has minutely exercised the due discretion. On the contrary, the trial court ought to have examined and analyzed each of the evidence led before it and therefore, in the background of this fact, it was erroneous on the part of the trial court to give benefit of doubt. Learned APP also contended that simply because the blood stains have not been found on the weapons and simply because some contradictions are appearing amongst the witnesses, said minor contradictions cannot be given much weightage for giving benefit of doubt and therefore, in the background of this fact, learned APP has contended that the case is required to be considered for reversing the order of acquittal. It is also contended that looking to the evidence of witnesses i.e. complainant - Parsottambhai as well as version of Dr. Maheshwari, the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and therefore, such evidence cannot be given a go-bye for giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Learned APP also submitted that simply because independent evidence has not come up, the same would not be a solitary factor to discard the evidence which has substantiated the main case of the prosecution and therefore, the benefit of doubt which has been given is of no avail. Learned APP has further contended that there was a land dispute which was very much prevailing and even the civil suit was also pending in the form of Regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1999 and therefore, taking disadvantage of this dispute, a scuffle has taken place and therefore, in no case the benefit of doubt was available to the respondents - accused and therefore, the trial court while passing an order of acquittal, has committed a grave error in exercising the jurisdiction. Learned APP has taken us through the medical evidence as also to other evidence related to the adjudication of the main case and ultimately, requested the Court to consider and correct the error committed by the trial court. 7. In respect of another appeal also, it has been contended by learned APP that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In respect of another appeal also, it has been contended by learned APP that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There was a specific examination of the complainant - Hasambhai Hajibhai in case of Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2006 and the said complainant was examined in detail at Exh. 9 and though this witness has specifically deposed before the court, the same could not have been discarded more particularly when other corroborative material was available on record. He also submitted that the entire narration of the incident was fortified by several witnesses including one witness - Gulab Hasan Multani, who is examined at Exh. 42 and taking aid of the said witness also, the prosecution has established the case beyond the reasonable doubt. In addition thereto, the evidence of PSI, Talshibhai Manjibhai Dholakia, who is examined at Exh. 45, has substantiated the case of the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution has already discharged its duty to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt by leading specific evidences. Learned APP has further contended that several witnesses have been examined and number of documentary evidence was also adduced but, unfortunately, same have not been considered in its right spirit and ultimately, the trial court passed the order of acquittal and therefore, such erroneous exercise of jurisdiction deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the same and by passing an order of conviction by inflicting appropriate sentence. No other submissions are made by learned APP. 8. To oppose the criminal appeals filed by the State, Mr. Mrudul M. Barot, learned advocate for the respondents - accused in Criminal Appeal No. 731 of 2006 and Mr. Budhbhatti, learned advocate for the respondents- accused in Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2006, have submitted that the incident in question has occurred way back in the year 2000 and there was a cross case alleged in respect of very same incident, which case has not been believed by the trial court upon appreciation of material on record and therefore, on the basis of same evidence, even if another view is possible, the same may not be substituted more particularly after almost a period of 16 years by now and therefore, learned advocates submitted that since the order of acquittal is passed after properly appreciating the evidence and material on record, such finding may not be disturbed. 8.1 Learned advocates for the respondent - accused have further submitted that while passing the order of acquittal and by giving benefit of doubt, the trial court has minutely examined the evidence of star witnesses as referred to above and even after appreciation, the case was not made out by the prosecution against the respondents - accused beyond the reasonable doubt which has necessitated the trial court to grant such benefit and therefore, the discretion which has been granted by the statute in favour of the trial court has rightly been exercised and since the judgment and order is based upon some reasoning, the same may not be interfered with. Learned advocates have further contended that upon examination of material on record, it is appearing that not only the injuries have not been explained properly by the prosecution but, even the use of weapon is also highly suspicious. What has been alleged in the complaint and by the prosecution on the issue of use of weapon by the respondents - accused, the same if to be analyzed and considered in the light of FSL report at Exh. 66 as also serological report at Exh. 67, the same is not in conformity and therefore, the acquittal order cannot be converted into conviction simply on the basis of suspicion or inferences. In fact, there a categorical finding on the part of the trial court that the blood stains have not been found on the iron pipe or the weapons and on stick the blood which has been found is not that of the victim. There was a discrepancy clearly in respect of it and therefore, since there is a serious doubt about the case of prosecution on that issue, the said doubt may not lean in favour of the prosecution. It has also been found specifically by the trial court that so called eye witnesses - Vithalbhai as well as Lakhmanbhai have also generated serious suspicion and doubt about the case of prosecution and there appears to be a clear attempt to rope the accused persons and therefore, on the basis of such appreciation on material on record, it has been found by the trial court that no order of conviction is possible, the benefit of doubt has been given and therefore, such exercise of jurisdiction in the absence of any perversity cannot be interfered with. It has also been pointed out by the learned advocates from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babu Ram & Others v. State of Punjab, (2008) 3 SCC 709 that non explanation of injuries on the accused by the prosecution in the murder case is of great significance from which the Court has to draw the inferences and by referring to Para. 18 of the said judgment, it has been contended that here the case on hand is such which covers the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decision. The said decision at an appropriate stage we will deal with. Learned advocates have also relied upon yet another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chandrappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein also, to deal with the cases, what kind of considerations be dealt with and by referring to these decisions, learned advocates have respectfully contended that no case is made out which would call for any interference. From the judgments of the respective sessions cases, it has been pointed out that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses put forth by the prosecution which are vital to the case and the injuries have not been explained nor such injuries are corroborative with the alleged use of weapons coupled with the FSL and serological reports and therefore, there are serious doubts about the version of prosecution which would lead to only one conclusion that benefit of doubt deserves to be granted which has rightly been granted in favour of the respondents - accused and therefore, learned advocates for the respondents - accused have contended that both the appeals are required to be dismissed in view of aforesaid situation prevailing on record. 9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record independently and having examined the detailed evidence which led before the trial court, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out by the appellate - State to interfere with an order of acquittal. If we examine independently the record of Sessions Case No. 192 of 2000 in which the prosecution witnesses in the form of eye witnesses Vithalbhai and Lakhmanbhai have deposed and their deposition before the court has been found contradictory which has generated a serious doubt about the prosecution case. If we examine independently the record of Sessions Case No. 192 of 2000 in which the prosecution witnesses in the form of eye witnesses Vithalbhai and Lakhmanbhai have deposed and their deposition before the court has been found contradictory which has generated a serious doubt about the prosecution case. It is further a fact that the complaint came to be filed after almost a period of 10 hours and there appears to be no justification of any nature about such belated complaint. The panchnamas have also not been supported by panch witnesses. PW-3 - Jamanbhai Ghusabhai and PW-4 Muljibhai Batukbhai are party to the execution of panchnama to the scene of offence at Exh. 54, have not supported the said panchnama. Similarly, recovery panchnama which has been prepared has also not been supported by the panch witnesses and therefore, very base has not been established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In addition thereto, if the court analysis the version of Dr. Mitesh Bhanderi coupled with other evidence on record, a stiff difference is found out. The serological report at Exh. 67 and FSL report at Exh. 66 have clearly demarcated that there are no blood stains found on the iron pipe which is said to have been used and the blood stains which is alleged to have been found on the stick is altogether on a different blood group. The accused persons' blood group is "B" blood group whereas complainant's blood group is "A" blood group and there is no co-relation between these blood groups and since on the main weapon, the blood group has not been found and not supported by the FSL as well as serological reports, there is no reason why benefit of doubt should not lean in favour of the accused persons. 10. In addition thereto, it has also been found from the evidence of eye witnesses - Vithalbhai and Lakhmanbhai which witnesses are not independent witnesses and their version is not generating any confidence. 10. In addition thereto, it has also been found from the evidence of eye witnesses - Vithalbhai and Lakhmanbhai which witnesses are not independent witnesses and their version is not generating any confidence. On the contrary, looking to the veracity of depositions of these witnesses, there appears to be an attempt on the part of prosecution to somehow drag the accused persons in commission of crime and that attempt has been examined at length by the trial court and upon thorough examination, the trial court came to the conclusion that the evidence of prosecution is not generating any confidence and it has rightly not convicted in such doubtful environment where the cogent material does not support the case of the prosecution. 11. Similar is the case with Sessions Case No. 193 of 2000 which has arisen out of the very same incident. There also, the trial court has specifically found, upon due examination of material on record, that the witnesses are not supporting so cogently to establish the guilt of the respondents - accused. In the said decision, the trial court has also examined various witnesses and upon examination of main witnesses, the injuries which have been caused to Parsottambhai, there appears to be no explanation. The injuries have again not been explained and on the contrary, the trial court has found that there appears to be some concealment on the part of prosecution. In the said case, from the deposition of PW-6 - Gafar Daud, who was the person, who accompanied in chhakada rickshaw, has also not cogently supported the case of prosecution. In fact, he is not an eye witness and therefore, his stray deposition has no any sanctity to establish the guilt. Even the PW-2 - Husain Lukmanji, PW-5 - Damji Dahya as also PW-8 - Vallabhbhai Bavanjibhai are also not supporting the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. The recovery of weapons, blood stains over it, the injuries not being explained, the panchnamas have not been proved, are the consistent circumstance prevailing on record which would generate a serious doubt in case of prosecution. The recovery of weapons, blood stains over it, the injuries not being explained, the panchnamas have not been proved, are the consistent circumstance prevailing on record which would generate a serious doubt in case of prosecution. Who has used the weapon against whom, is not clearly established from the material on record and therefore, when such kind of circumstances are prevailing, it cannot be said that any error is committed by the trial court in granting the benefit of doubt to the respondents - accused and therefore, it appears to this Court that exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court in both these cases is just and proper and there appears to be no perversity in any of the conclusion arrived at by the trial court. 12. In addition thereto, the reference of few decisions have also assisted the Court in arriving at this independent conclusion as well that benefit must lean in favour of the respondents - accused. In case of Babu Ram (Supra), paragraph No. 18 is almost attracting the theory of benefit of doubt which has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same worth to be taken note of and hence, same is reproduced hereinafter : "18. It is a well-settled law that in a murder case, the non- explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences:- 1. that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; 2. that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; 3. that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. [See : Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 ] 19. that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. [See : Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 ] 19. Further, it is important to point out that the omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one." 13. In addition to this, we are conscious about the fact that both these appeals have arisen against the order of acquittal whereby, the benefit is extended to the accused persons and therefore, looking to the peripheral scope of acquittal appeal, the Court finds no manifest error nor any perversity in coming to the conclusion by the trial court and upon independent examination of material on record also, there appears to be no case of taking a different view than what has been taken by the trial court and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the background of aforesaid set of circumstance, no case is made out by the State which would call for any interference. Relevant decisions on the issue of exercise of appellate jurisdiction are reproduced hereinafter. 13.1 In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 , the Apex Court has narrated the powers of High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under: "54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below." 13.2 Further, in the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415 , the Apex Court laid down the following principles; "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: [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 curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis 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. 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." 13.3. The Supreme Court in case of Golbar Hussain & Ors. v. State of Assam & Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 242, has held in Para. 6, 7 and 8 as under : "6. The present case involves consideration on two issues. First being the powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Second, being the sufficiency of the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 to convict the accused persons without any corroboration from an independent witness and the relevancy of the statement of a hostile witness involving appreciation of the statement of PW-8 who turned hostile. 7. Second, being the sufficiency of the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 to convict the accused persons without any corroboration from an independent witness and the relevancy of the statement of a hostile witness involving appreciation of the statement of PW-8 who turned hostile. 7. On the first issue, the legal principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, have been reiterated by this Court in a catena of cases. This Court culled down five general principles in Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , as follows: "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate 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 emphasis 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. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 8. The Court referred to Kallu alias Masih and Ors. (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." (Emphasis supplied) 8. The Court referred to Kallu alias Masih and Ors. v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 , in the above-mentioned judgment, where it held that; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate Court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial Court'." 13.4 Yet in another decision in case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, (2015) 11 SCC 124, the Supreme Court while dealing with an order of the High Court in acquitting appeal, has observed as under : "14. Taking the First question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognized as a human right by this Court. In Narendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 : AIR 2004 SC 3249 , this Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right and has gone on to say that: "30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between 'may be' and 'must be'. 31. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between 'may be' and 'must be'. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger when a judgment of acquittal is passed. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a Higher Court (see Dhanna v. State of M.P., Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) which had not been adhered to by the High Court. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 33. We, thus, having regard to the post-mortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimla Bai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld." (Emphasis Supplied) 15. The decision taken by this Court in the aforementioned case, has been further reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : AIR 2003 SC 3601 , wherein this Court observed thus: "7. Generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases 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 to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 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 reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, or the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, or the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. (see Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.) The principle to be followed by the 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, it is a compelling reason for interference." (Emphasis Supplied). 16. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court has erred in reversing the acquittal of accused appellant, stands good. The Additional Sessions Judge was right in granting him benefit of doubt. The view which favours the accused/appellant has to be considered and we discard the opposite view which indicates his guilt. 17. We are also of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the decision taken by the Additional Session Judge, as the judgment passed was not manifestly illegal, perverse, and did not cause miscarriage of justice. On the scope of High Court's revisional jurisdiction, this Court has held in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 650 : AIR 2002 SC 2907 , "that in absence of any manifest illegality, perversity and miscarriage of justice, High Court would not be justified interfering with the concurrent finding of acquittal of the accused merely because on re-appreciation of evidence it found the testimony of PWs. to be reliable whereas the trial Court had taken an opposite view." This happens to be the situation in the matter before us and we are of the view that the High Court was wrong in interfering with the order of acquittal of Upendra Pradhan passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 18. The Second ground pleaded before us by the counsel for the accused appellant, that the testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W.7 should not have been considered, as they were interested witnesses, holds no teeth. We are of the opinion that the testimonies of interested witnesses are of great importance and weightage. No man would be willing to spare the real culprit and frame an innocent person. This view has been supplemented by the decision of this Court in Mohd. We are of the opinion that the testimonies of interested witnesses are of great importance and weightage. No man would be willing to spare the real culprit and frame an innocent person. This view has been supplemented by the decision of this Court in Mohd. Ishaque v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 14 SCC 581 . 22. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appellant has been released on bail vide this Court's order dated 15.04.2014. His bail bonds are discharged." 13.5 In another decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 353 , it has observed that if two views are possible, the High Court should lead in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an order of acquittal. The relevant observations of the decision are reflected in Para. 55, 56 and 57 which read as under : "55. The second contention is that the High Court ought not to have interfered in the acquittal by the Trial Court. It was submitted that if two views are possible, the High Court should lean in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an acquittal. 56. A few years ago, the law on the subject was culled out from a large number of decisions and summed up in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 : AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1318 : 2008 AIR SCW 6598 as follows: "1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed 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. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. 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. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." 57. Learned counsel for Suresh Kumar referred to S. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 219 : 2013 AIR SCW 6180 particularly paragraph 14 of the Report wherein reliance was placed on Rohtash v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 : AIR 2012 SC 2297 : 2012 AIR SCW 3318 to conclude that it is "only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, can the High Court interfere with the order of acquittal." In Rohtash it was further observed: "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 innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 : AIR 2011 SC 2271 : 2011 AIR SCW 3889 Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722 : AIR 2012 SC 1292 : 2012 AIR SCW 1994)." 14. In view of aforesaid proposition of law on exercise of jurisdiction while dealing with acquittal appeal, having gone through the proposition and co-related the same with the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the State has not made out any case which can permit us to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial court. 15. In the result, the present appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal, dated 28.10.2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2000 and 193 of 2000, by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.