JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, State has challenged judgment passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2010 dated 19.07.2011, vide which, learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 325 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. In brief, the case of the prosecution was that on 25.05.2010 deceased Hari Ram was sleeping in his house situated at village Jalla alongwith his minor son Amar Singh. Between 10-11 P.M., Hari Ram went out of the room to urinate and after sometime, Amar Singh heard noise of quarrel. Amar Singh accordingly got up and went out of the room and found that the accused persons were giving beatings to his father. As per prosecution, accused Roop Chand was armed with stick and he gave beatings to Hari Ram with that stick, whereas accused Bhime Ram gave beatings by inflicting fist blows to deceased Hari Ram. Further, as per prosecution, accused after beating Hari Ram left the spot. Amar Singh brought his father inside the room, where they went to sleep and in the morning of 26.05.2010, Amar Singh narrated the entire incident to his uncle Mani Ram. Thereafter, Mani Ram, Chuhru Ram and Jhabe Ram, arranged a vehicle of one Hira Singh and Hari Ram was taken to Primary Health Centre, Nagwain, from where he was referred to Civil Hospital. From Civil Hospital, Kullu, he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he died on 31.05.2010. Further, as per prosecution, police after receiving the information of the incident went to Civil Hospital, Kullu and moved an application Ext. PW17/D to the Medical Officer to seek his opinion for the purpose of recording the statement of Hari Ram but the Medical Officer opined that Hari Ram at the relevant time was not fit to make a statement. Pursuant to this, statement of Amar Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which, FIR No. 70/2010 was registered against the accused persons. After the death of Hari Ram on 31.05.2010 at 05.45 P.M., police visited IGMC, Shimla and prepared inquest report. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted at IGMC, Shimla and report thereof was obtained by the police. After the death of Hari Ram on 31.05.2010 at 05.45 P.M., police visited IGMC, Shimla and prepared inquest report. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted at IGMC, Shimla and report thereof was obtained by the police. As per the opinion of the team of the Medical Officers, the deceased had died due to traumatic brain injury. Accused Bhime Ram was arrested on 31.05.2010, whereas accused Roop Chand was arrested on 06.06.2010. During the course of investigation, Roop Chand while in custody made a disclosure statement Ext. PW9/A to the effect that he had concealed a danda in the bushes on the way leading from village Jalla to Phini. On the basis of the said disclosure statement, on 09.06.2010 danda Ext. P-1 was recovered and was taken into possession by the police. This danda was shown to the Medical Officer, who opined that the injuries on the person of deceased were possible by danda Ext. P-1. Further, as per prosecution, during the course of investigation, one piece of mattress Ext. P-3 and one shirt Ext. P-4, were produced by Amar Singh, which were accordingly taken into possession. 3. After the completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused persons, they were charged for commission of offences punishable under Sections 451, 325 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record both ocular as well as documentary by the prosecution held that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court found the statement of PW-2 Amar Singh not satisfactory. As per learned trial Court, there were inconsistencies in the statement of PW-2 Amar Singh as well as contradictions when compared with the deposition of other prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Court also held that even the alleged recovery of Danda Ext. P-1 at the instance of accused Roop Chand was doubtful. It further held that as the alleged incident took place on 25.05.2010 between 10-11 P.M., there was no justification as to why report was lodged with the police on 28.05.2010 at 01.30 P.M. Learned trial Court held that delay in lodging the report was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. P-1 at the instance of accused Roop Chand was doubtful. It further held that as the alleged incident took place on 25.05.2010 between 10-11 P.M., there was no justification as to why report was lodged with the police on 28.05.2010 at 01.30 P.M. Learned trial Court held that delay in lodging the report was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. It was further held by learned trial Court that PW-1 Hira Singh had specifically stated that Amar Singh, Jhabe Ram and Chuhru Ram accompanied deceased to PHC Nagwain on 26.05.2010 hence report could have been easily lodged with the police on 26.05.2010 itself. Learned trial Court also held that Ext. PW15/B, MLC of Hari Ram, demonstrated that there was a note made in the same by the Medical Officer to the effect that patient brought by his relatives with alleged history of fall and later they said that he was also given beating by some one. Learned trial Court held that it was not understandable that if the accused persons had given beating to the deceased then why the relatives of the deceased including his son Amar Singh informed the Medical Officer that Hari Ram had sustained injuries by way of fall. It further held that it was also not understandable why Amar Singh who was accompanying Hari Ram, did not lodge report with the police immediately after the incident and he waited till 28.05.2010. It further held that if two views were possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence of the accused, the view favourable to the accused, should be adopted. Learned trial Court also held that defence taken by the accused persons was that Hari Ram fell down from the verandah of his house while he had gone to pass urine, was both probable and believable, especially in view of the statement of PW-5 Mani Ram, who admitted in his cross-examination that Amar Singh disclosed to him in the morning on 26.05.2010 that while his father was going to pass urine during the night he had a sudden fall from the verandah. Learned trial Court also held that defence so taken by the accused also found support from the reply given by PW-2 in answer to the question put to him in the cross-examination wherein he admitted that on hearing cry of his father, he had gone to the spot and noticed that his father was lying on the ground floor in front of his house. On these basis, it was held by learned trial Court that the possibility of Hari Ram falling down from the verandah of his house and having sustained injuries due to said fall, could not be ruled out. Learned trial Court thus gave benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted them of the offences for which they were charged. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, State has filed this appeal. 6. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the judgment of acquittal returned by learned trial Court was not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned trial Court while acquitting the accused erred in not appreciating that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prosecution witnesses had proved and corroborated the case of the prosecution on all material points. It was argued by Mr. Thakur that the reasonings returned by learned trial Court were manifestly unreasonable as learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of material prosecution witnesses including PW-2 who was an eye witness in its correct perspective. Mr. Thakur further argued that learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that it stood proved on record by the testimony of PW-2 that the accused persons had enmity with the deceased and they had a motive to do away with the deceased. He also argued that the statement of PW-2 read with the statement of PW-20 clearly and categorically proved the guilt of the accused. On these basis, it was urged by Mr. Thakur that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court was liable to be set aside and the accused were liable to be convicted for the commission of offences for which they were charged. 7. On the other hand, Mr. On these basis, it was urged by Mr. Thakur that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court was liable to be set aside and the accused were liable to be convicted for the commission of offences for which they were charged. 7. On the other hand, Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was neither any perversity with the judgment passed by learned trial Court nor it could be said that the findings returned by learned trial Court were not borne out from the records of the case. It was argued by Mr. Palsra that after taking into consideration the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution, learned trial Court had rightly held that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Palsra argued that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was neither credible nor reliable. As per him, learned trial Court had taken into consideration the inconsistencies and contradictions in the statement of the so called eye witness PW-2 as well as the factum of the prosecution not being able to prove the recovery of the alleged Danda in the mode and manner in which the prosecution wanted the Court to believe. Mr. Palsra further argued that on the basis of the evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it could not be said that the prosecution was in fact able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and in these circumstances, the benefit of doubt returned in favour of the accused by learned trial Court could not be faulted with. Mr. Palsra accordingly argued that as there was no merit in the appeal, the same was liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court. 9. In order to prove its case, prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses, whereas accused himself entered the witness box as DW-1. 10. Amar Singh, minor son of deceased Hari Ram, entered the witness box as PW-2. 9. In order to prove its case, prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses, whereas accused himself entered the witness box as DW-1. 10. Amar Singh, minor son of deceased Hari Ram, entered the witness box as PW-2. Before his statement was recorded by the Court, court questions were put to him by learned trial Court and on the basis of the answers which were given by the said witness to the court questions, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the said witness was a good and competent witness. 11. PW-2 Amar Singh deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 25.05.2010 he and his father Hari Ram were at their house in village Jalla. Accused Roop Lal and Bhime Ram came to their verandah between 10-11 P.M. and started beating his father. He further deposed that accused Roop Lal gave beatings to his father with danda, whereas accused Bhime Ram gave him fist blows. He further stated that his father sustained injuries on his head, hand and foot and blood started oozing out of the wound from the head. He also stated that his father became unconscious and that he saw both the accused beating his father. This witness also deposed that thereafter the accused left the place of occurrence and in the morning he narrated the incident to Mani Ram, elder brother of his father and thereafter, his father was taken to PHC Nagwain, from where he was brought to Kullu hospital in a jeep. He also deposed that his maternal uncle Chuhru Ram, his Tau Mani Ram and Jaharu Ram also accompanied his father to PHC Nagwain and from there to Kullu Hospital. He further deposed that his father died due to the injuries inflicted upon him by the accused persons. He further stated that matter was reported to the police vide his statement Ext. PW2/A which bore his signatures. He also stated that from Kullu hospital his father was referred to I.G.M.C., Shimla, where his father died. He also stated that he could identify the danda with which his father was given blow. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that his father was working as a mason and on 25.05.2010 his father was working as such in the house of one Surat Ram, resident of village Khyiyunu, which was at a distance of 15 minutes walk from their house. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that his father was working as a mason and on 25.05.2010 his father was working as such in the house of one Surat Ram, resident of village Khyiyunu, which was at a distance of 15 minutes walk from their house. He further deposed that his father had returned from village Khiyunu at around 8.00 P.M. and it was dark at that time. He denied that his father had consumed 2-3 bottles of illicit liquor. He stated that he did not accompany his father to PHC Nagwain and thereafter to District hospital Kullu. He admitted it to be correct that on the next morning of the incident, he had disclosed about the incident to his maternal uncle Chuhru Ram as well as to Mani Ram and Jhabe Ram, brother of his father. He admitted that there was a small verandah outside the two rooms of his house towards front side. He also admitted it to be correct that there was no railing in that verandah and that the verandah was at a height of about 15-16 feet from lower level of the ground from the first storey. He further stated in his cross-examination that he brought his father from the ground of first flour to the upper storey by lifting him. He further stated that he helped him to stand and then he helped him to walk also. He admitted that there were stones scattered on the ground floor from where he had brought his father to the upper storey. He also stated that when the police visited their house after 2-3 days, he had shown the blood stains on the ground but the police did not lift the blood stains stone from the ground. He also stated that when he saw accused persons, he was not asleep but was sitting in the room. He further stated that his father went outside the room to pass urine and when he heard cries of his father, he was lying on the ground in front of the ground floor room, thereafter he went to that place where his father had fallen. He also stated that the accused persons came to the spot when he had already reached there. He stated that he was not aware as to what was the dispute between his father and the accused. He also stated that the accused persons came to the spot when he had already reached there. He stated that he was not aware as to what was the dispute between his father and the accused. He stated that accused Roop Lal, resident of village Dhamar which was away from village Khiyunu. He admitted it to be correct that danda Ext. P-1 was kept in their house and it had no special identification mark. He also admitted that Ext. P-1 danda was taken by the police from their house. He also stated that he had not produced Ext. P-1 to the police but self-stated that the same was taken by the police from their house. Thereafter, he stated that accused had concealed danda Ext. P-1. He admitted it to be correct that he had signed Ext. PW1/A at the instance of police and he did not read the contents thereof. 12. Chuhru Ram entered the witness box as PW-4 and he deposed that deceased was his brother-in-law. On 26.05.2010 between 10-11 A.M., he received a message from Mani Ram, brother of deceased Hari Ram, who told him that Hari Ram was beaten by somebody and he was lying injured in his room at village Jalla. He further deposed that he saw Hari Ram, lying injured in the room and he was having injuries over his head, arm and leg. Blood was oozing out from the head and Hari Ram was lying unconscious. He also stated that he, Mani Ram and Jhabe Ram were present in the house of the deceased and Mani Ram called Hira Singh to bring his vehicle to take injured to PHC Nagwain. He further stated that he, Mani Ram and Jhabe Ram accompanied injured in the vehicle to PHC Nagwain, from where injured was referred to Kullu hospital by the Medical Officer and from Kullu hospital, injured was referred to I.G.M.C., Shimla but Hari Ram died in I.G.M.C., Shimla. He further stated that blood stains were there over the mattresses and shirt. Floor of the house was already washed and Amar Singh told him that the deceased was beaten by accused Roop Lal and Bhime Ram. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that on the day when they left for Kullu, clothes of the deceased were already washed. He further stated that blood stains were there over the mattresses and shirt. Floor of the house was already washed and Amar Singh told him that the deceased was beaten by accused Roop Lal and Bhime Ram. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that on the day when they left for Kullu, clothes of the deceased were already washed. He stated that he reached the house of the deceased at 10-11 A.M. and Mani Ram and Jhabe Ram were already there when he reached the house of the deceased. He also stated that Mani Ram gave him information through Amar Singh and distance between his house and the house of Mani Ram was 5-6 kilometers. This witness was confronted with the statement recorded with the police wherein it was not so recorded that he had received the message from Mani Ram. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that there was no railing on the verandah which was in front of the two rooms of the second storey of the house of the deceased and the verandah was at the height of 15-16 feet. He denied the suggestion that Amar Singh had disclosed to him that on the fateful day at about 11.00 P.M. deceased got up from his bed and went to pass urine and from there he had fallen from the verandah to the ground of first floor. 13. PW-5 Mani Ram, brother of the deceased, deposed in Court that “on 25th in the summer season”, Amar Singh son of deceased Hari Ram, came to him and told that accused Roop Singh and Bhime Ram had beaten Hari Ram. He further stated that when he reached the house of Hari Ram, he was lying on his bed and his head was bleeding. He further stated that he called Hira Singh alongwith vehicle and took Hari Ram to PHC Nagwain and then to Kullu. He further stated that deceased was referred to Shimla, where he died. In his cross-examination, he stated that Hari Ram and Bhime Ram had constructed their houses adjoining to each other but were living separately. Further, in his cross-examination, he admitted it to be correct that Amar Singh had told him that the deceased had consumed liquor and had reached his home at odd hours. In his cross-examination, he stated that Hari Ram and Bhime Ram had constructed their houses adjoining to each other but were living separately. Further, in his cross-examination, he admitted it to be correct that Amar Singh had told him that the deceased had consumed liquor and had reached his home at odd hours. He also admitted it to be correct that Amar Singh told him that Hari Ram wake up at about 11.00 P.M. and went out from the room for passing urine. He also admitted it to be correct that there was a small verandah outside the room where Hari Ram was sleeping and he also admitted it to be correct that while Hari Ram was passing urine, he had a sudden fall from the verandah, which was on the upper storey and Hari Ram fell down on the ground in front of lower storey room. He admitted it to be correct that Amar Singh told him that he heard cry of Hari Ram. He also admitted to be correct that Amar Singh told him that he helped his father and brought him to his room and thereafter both of them slept in the room. This witness further deposed in his cross-examination that when the said facts were disclosed by Amar Singh to him, there were other persons namely Chuhru Ram, Jhabe Ram and Karam Singh, who had also come to see the injured. He further stated that Chuhru Ram was called by him. He also deposed in his cross-examination that firstly they took Hari Ram in the vehicle to PHC Nagwain and he also admitted it to be correct that they had told the Doctor that Hari Ram had fallen down and received injuries on his person. He admitted it to be correct that when they took the deceased to Kullu hospital, Doctor inquired from them as to why Hari Ram had received injuries and they told him that he had sustained injuries due to fall. He admitted it to be correct that Hari Ram remained admitted in Kullu hospital from 26.05.2010 to 30.05.2010 and thereafter, he was referred to I.G.M.C. Shimla. 14. The above witnesses discussed by us are all close relatives of the deceased. It is not disputed before us that the only eye witness of the alleged incident is Amar Singh PW-2, son of the deceased. 14. The above witnesses discussed by us are all close relatives of the deceased. It is not disputed before us that the only eye witness of the alleged incident is Amar Singh PW-2, son of the deceased. Now, a perusal of the statement of this witness demonstrates that the same is full of contradictions and inconsistencies so as to be confidence inspiring. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has deposed that on the fateful day when he and his father were at their house in village Jalla, accused came to their verandah between 10-11 P.M. and started beating his father and while accused Roop Lal was beating his father with Danda, accused Bhime Ram was giving fist blow to him. He further deposed that as a result of the injuries so inflicted upon his father by the accused, his father became unconscious and thereafter accused left the place of occurrence. He further deposed that in the morning he narrated the incident to Mani Ram, elder brother of his father and thereafter, his father was taken to the hospital. In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that there was a small verandah outside the two rooms of his house, where he was sleeping with his father and there was no railing on the said verandah and the verandah was at a height of about 15-16 feet from lower level of the ground. It has come in his cross-examination that he brought his father from the ground floor by lifting him to the upper storey. He further stated that when he heard the cries of his father, his father was lying on the ground in front of the ground floor room and it is there that he went to bring his father. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that Danda Ext. P-1 was kept in their house and was taken by the police from their house. 15. Now, when we compare the statement of PW-2 with the statement of PW-5 Mani Ram, brother of deceased, we find lot of contradictions in the version of these two witnesses. PW-5 Mani Ram has stated in his cross-examination that Amar Singh had told him that deceased had consumed liquor and reached the house at odd hours. 15. Now, when we compare the statement of PW-2 with the statement of PW-5 Mani Ram, brother of deceased, we find lot of contradictions in the version of these two witnesses. PW-5 Mani Ram has stated in his cross-examination that Amar Singh had told him that deceased had consumed liquor and reached the house at odd hours. He also admitted that Amar Singh had told him that Amar Singh and deceased took their meal and thereafter they slept in the room and that Hari Ram wake up at around 11.00 P.M. and went out from the room for passing urine. This witness also admitted that there was a small verandah outside the room where deceased Hari Ram was sleeping. He also admitted that while Hari Ram was passing urine, he had a sudden fall from the verandah and he fell from the upper storey to the ground in front of the lower storey room. He admitted it to be correct that Amar Singh had told him that he heard cries of injured Hari Ram and thereafter, Amar Singh went down to the ground floor to lift Hari Ram and brought him to his room. He also admitted it to be correct that after the deceased was taken to PHC, Nagwain, in an injured condition, he told the Doctor that Hari Ram in fact had sustained injuries on account of fall. In continuation, a perusal of the statement of PW-4 Chuhru Ram, brother-in-law of the deceased, also discloses that this witness has also admitted that there was a small verandah in front of the two rooms on the second storey without any railing. 16. Dr. Satya Vrat Vaidya, who entered the witness box as PW-15, deposed that on 26.05.2010 he was posted as Medical Officer, PHC Nagwain and he examined one Hari Ram (deceased) who was brought to him by his relatives with alleged history of fall and later they said that he was beaten by someone. MLC issued by the said Doctor is on record as Ext. PW15/B, in which it is written that patient brought by his relatives with alleged history of fall and later they said that he was beaten by someone. 17. MLC issued by the said Doctor is on record as Ext. PW15/B, in which it is written that patient brought by his relatives with alleged history of fall and later they said that he was beaten by someone. 17. If the version of PW-2 Amar Singh is to be believed that on the fateful day when he and his father were at their house, accused persons came to their verandah and started beating the deceased who sustained fatal injuries as a result of the beatings so given to him by the accused, then it is not understood as to why he did not narrate the incident in the same manner to PW-5, his paternal uncle, who has deposed in the Court that PW-2 told him that the deceased had come home under the influence of liquor and at around 11.00 P.M. when he had gone out to urinate, he fell down from the verandah of the upper storey to the lower storey and sustained injuries. Not only this, inconsistencies in the deposition of PW-2 are also borne out from the fact that on one hand PW-2 has stated that the deceased was beaten by the accused on the verandah but thereafter he has deposed that after he heard cries of the deceased, he found him lying on the ground of the lower storey, from where he picked his father and brought to their home in the upper storey. It is also surprising that if in fact the deceased had received fatal injuries at the hands of the accused then why no hue and cry in this regard was immediately raised by his son PW-2 and why he did not inform any of his relatives who were residing in near vicinity or the police immediately about the incident. Besides this, it is a matter of record that though as per prosecution, the deceased was beaten by the accused on the night of 25.05.2010, however no FIR was lodged till 28.05.2010. Besides this, it is a matter of record that though as per prosecution, the deceased was beaten by the accused on the night of 25.05.2010, however no FIR was lodged till 28.05.2010. No cogent explanation has come forth from the prosecution as to why at the relevant time when the deceased was taken to PHC, Nagwain, in an injured condition, it was not disclosed to the Doctor concerned that the deceased had suffered injuries on account of beatings given to him by the accused but the Doctor was informed that the deceased had sustained injuries on account of fall and the story of his being beaten by someone was introduced later on. All these factors create suspicion on the version of the prosecution and it is settled law that if version of the prosecution appear to be doubtful then benefit of doubt has to go to the accused. 18. Now, as per prosecution while in custody, accused Roop Chand made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Ext. PW9/A to the effect that he had hidden Danda with which he had beaten the deceased in bushes near a road leading to the house of Bhime Ram and it was on the basis of the said disclosure statement of the accused that weapon of offence was recovered. However, when we peruse the testimony of PW-2, in his cross-examination this witness deposed that weapon of offence Danda Ext. P-1 was taken by the police from the house of the deceased itself. This renders the entire story put forth by the prosecution about the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence to be falsified. It is not understood that which version of the prosecution should be believed i.e. whether the version that the recovery of the weapon of offence was made on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused or what has come out in the deposition of PW-2, star witness of the prosecution. All these factors when taken together, create a serious doubt over the veracity of the case of the prosecution and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. All these factors when taken together, create a serious doubt over the veracity of the case of the prosecution and in this view of the matter, it cannot be said that prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. In our considered view, the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5, who otherwise are close relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses in the case, are neither cogent nor reliable nor they appear to be trustworthy. Besides this, credibility of these witnesses has been impeached by the defence in their cross-examination and it will be dangerous to order conviction of the accused on the basis of the unreliable and shaky evidence of the said prosecution witnesses. 20. Besides this, the accused have the benefit of having been acquitted by learned trial Court. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and Others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94. “12. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court against judgment of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal because another view is possible to be taken. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions on the subject and reference to a later decision of this Court in Ghurey Lal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 450 shall suffice wherein this Court considered a long line of cases and held thus : (SCC p.477, paras 69 -70) "69. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 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 re-appreciate 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. 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. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. 70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized 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. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached--one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High Courts/ appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." 21. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kahan Chand, 2016 (1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 576, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under “19. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kahan Chand, 2016 (1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 576, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under “19. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohamed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.” 22. Therefore, in our considered view, it cannot be said that on the basis of evidence both oral as well as documentary prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court also demonstrates that it has exhaustively taken into consideration the entire evidence produced on record by the prosecution and after appreciation of the same has held that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused on the strength of evidence placed on record. We concur with the findings so returned by learned trial Court. The findings so returned by learned trial Court are neither perverse nor it can be said that the same are not borne out from the records of the case. 23. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court is upheld, whereas the appeal filed by the State is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.