Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 899 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Shantilal

2017-04-26

A.J.SHASTRI, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The State has filed present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 30th June 2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 29th August 2004 at about 6:45 p.m. the accused persons had attacked and assaulted one Dayaljibhai Ratanshibhai Chotaliya, the husband of the complainant viz. Narmadaben. The complainant has asserted in the complaint that one Babubhai of Village Ambala had come and informed to the complainant that the husband of the complainant viz. Dayaljibhai was lying in bleeding condition near the Patiya at Village Mavana. On reporting of the said circumstance by Babubhai, complainant Narmadaben as well as Hirabapa had straight way rushed out to the spot in rickshaw of one Nathabhai Narshibhai where the husband of complainant was lying in an injured condition. The injured was immediately taken to the Morbi Government Hospital. However, after giving primary treatment on account of the serious condition was required to be shifted to Rajkot for further treatment where Dayaljibhai was in an unconscious state of mind and therefore, the complainant at the hospital informed the police regarding such commission of crime at Jodia Police Station, which was registered as Cr. No. I-43 of 2004. After registering the offence the crime reported was inquired by Investigating officer Mr. Solanki, who after collecting and taking steps, which are required in investigation has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jodiya, which was registered as Charge-sheet No. 14/05 and the Criminal Case was then registered as Case No. 69 of 2005. The offence, which was reported was triable by the Court of Sessions in exercise of power under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate was pleased to commit the case to the Sessions Court, which was came for consideration before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, which was then registered as Sessions Case No. 45 of 2005. Upon committal of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has framed the charge at Exh. 7 against the respondent-accused and plea recorded at Exh. 8 and 9. During the passage of time, the main accused Khimjibhai Kacha Chauhan passed away and therefore, the case has become abated qua him. Upon committal of the case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has framed the charge at Exh. 7 against the respondent-accused and plea recorded at Exh. 8 and 9. During the passage of time, the main accused Khimjibhai Kacha Chauhan passed away and therefore, the case has become abated qua him. Resultantly, only one accused i.e. Shantilal @ Natho Khimjibhai Kacha Chauhan was tried as accused and subsequent thereof, the plea has been recorded of the respondent accused in which he denied the offence being committed and claimed to be tried. 3. The record further indicates that after the said process of recording of plea, the prosecution has given an opportunity to lead the evidence which had been led before the Court in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence in the following form. 4. After leading the said evidence, closure purshis given by the prosecution. Resultantly, a further statement of respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In Section 313 statement also since the offence is denied being committed, the case was then put-up for final adjudication where the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has framed issues. After considering the overall material on record and after appreciating the ocular as well as documentary evidence lead by the prosecution, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 2, vide judgment and order dated 30th June 2006 was pleased to pass an order of acquittal and released the respondent-accused from the charge of 307, 114 of the I.P.C. read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It is this judgment and order, which is made a subject matter of this criminal appeal. 5. From the record, it appears that the appeal has been admitted on 31st January 2008 and after completion of preparation of paper-book, the same has come-up for final hearing before us, in which the learned APP Ms. Punani, represented the appellant-State. 6. Ms. Punani, learned APP for the State has contended specifically that a serious error is committed by the learned Judge in appreciating the evidence in its true perspective and there appears to be a material error of jurisdiction, which requires interference of this Court. Ms. Punani, learned APP further submitted that the medical evidence has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and the injured's version could have been accepted, which was wrongly discarded. The main material witness Mr. Ms. Punani, learned APP further submitted that the medical evidence has clearly supported the case of the prosecution and the injured's version could have been accepted, which was wrongly discarded. The main material witness Mr. Valimamad Suleman, who has seen the accused persons running away from the spot has also not been properly construed and his testimony is also not appreciated in its proper perspective and therefore, this being the decision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed a serious error, which required to be corrected by this appellate jurisdiction. 7. Ms. Punani, learned APP further submitted that victim was seriously injured and had to take vigorous medical treatment and looking to the injuries, which have been inflicted, there appears to be a clear case of offence of Section 307 of the I.P.C. The manner in which the injuries are reflecting from medical evidence is establishing the intention as well as knowledge of the respondent-accused in commission of crime and therefore, when such intention and knowledge is very much reflected from the testimony of witnesses, which have been examined by the prosecution whether injuries are on the vital part of body or not are insignificant and therefore, the case has been succinctly proved by the prosecution establishing the guilt against the respondent-accused and having not appreciated the same, the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is required to be corrected. 8. Learned APP further submitted that the other prosecution witnesses in addition to Mr. Valimamad, the rickshawwala Nathabhai though has not supported the case that much, but his cross-examination is clearly indirectly supporting the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, from the testimony of Balvantbhai, who first in the point of time, rushed to the house of the complainant to inform about the victim lying in a bleeding condition, whose testimony also strongly supported the case of the prosecution, which have been wrongly not been accepted by the trial Court. The other witnesses i.e. Chhaganbhai's evidence has also strongly supported the case of prosecution and in addition thereto, to prove the case, further the medical evidence is also clearly supporting the ocular evidence. Dr. Shailesh Patel, who is P.W.10 and examined at Exh. 24 has also clearly supported the version of the complainant. The other witnesses i.e. Chhaganbhai's evidence has also strongly supported the case of prosecution and in addition thereto, to prove the case, further the medical evidence is also clearly supporting the ocular evidence. Dr. Shailesh Patel, who is P.W.10 and examined at Exh. 24 has also clearly supported the version of the complainant. From his deposition, learned APP submitted that the history, which has been recorded by the said medical officer at the initial stage itself has clearly indicated the names of two witnesses (1) the present respondent Shantilal as well as deceased Khimjibhai and therefore, from this testimony the consistency is reflecting about the role played by the respondent-accused as in the F.I.R. the clear names have been asserted. Not only that, but when the victim was taken to the hospital for treatment, there also consistent names have been referred to that of accused persons. In addition thereto, learned APP submitted that even at the subsequent hospital where the victim taken, there also names have been clearly mentioned and therefore, since, the consistency is reflecting from the ocular as well as medical evidence, the learned Judge ought not to have discarded the version, which has been given. Even from the scene of offence panchanama, which has been prepared and reflecting at page No. 431 of the paper book compilation, where also it is reflected that from the spot of occurrence, the blood stains have been found. The recovery, which has been made is also on the basis of discovery of weapons used by Shantilal, which clearly indicates that not only the scene of offence, the panchnama is reflecting the incriminating circumstance, but also the recovery of weapon has also corroborated. The serological report is also indicative of the fact that the weapon, which has been used has marks of blood stains, which evidence is sufficient enough to hold the respondent guilty of commission of crime. 9. Considering this overall circumstance prevailing on record, Ms. Punani, learned APP has contended that the serious error is committed by the learned Judge in passing the order of acquittal, which requires to be interfered with and therefore, ultimately requested not to allow such respondent to scout free and the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge requires to be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Apurva K. Jani, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Sessions Judge requires to be quashed and set aside. 10. Mr. Apurva K. Jani, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Ashish M. Dagli, learned advocate representing the complainant has also supported the stand taken by the learned APP. Mr. Jani, learned advocate vehemently contended that there is a consistency in the story put right from the F.I.R. and specific names have been asserted in the complaint given in medical history where the victim was taken for treatment and also subsequent names and role of the respondent-accused are clearly mentioned and therefore, in view of this consistency between medical evidence indicating that injuries are sufficient to cause death and the manner in which the blows are inflicted upon are sufficient enough to establish the ingredients contained under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and therefore, this is being the case in which the prosecution has establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, there is hardly any circumstance cogent enough to grant any order of acquittal and therefore, ultimately supported the case of the prosecution and by adopting the further arguments of the learned APP requested the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 11. To oppose the stand taken by the learned APP for the appellant-State as well as learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Sanjay M. Kikani, learned advocate for Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate for the respondent has contended specifically that there is no error committed by the learned Judge in passing the order of acquittal. On the contrary, the detailed discussion has taken place of each of the testimonies, which have been tried to be relied upon by the prosecution and after considering this overall circumstances prevailing on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has arrived at a conclusion, which conclusion is definitely a plausible view and therefore, contended that this being an acquittal appeal, no interference be made. 12. Shri Kikani, learned advocate further submitted that the medical opinion, which is tried to be relied upon is not establishing the guilt of the respondent-accused. Sessions Judge has arrived at a conclusion, which conclusion is definitely a plausible view and therefore, contended that this being an acquittal appeal, no interference be made. 12. Shri Kikani, learned advocate further submitted that the medical opinion, which is tried to be relied upon is not establishing the guilt of the respondent-accused. At one point of time, it has been emerging that Shantilal @ Natho Khimjibhai has used 'Kharapiya' by giving blows on head and if this allegation is viewed from the medical evidence, it is reflecting that the injuries are not corroborating and therefore, there appears to be a clear contrast in the version of the witness as compared to medical opinion and therefore, when this ocular and medical evidence are at contrast, there is hardly any circumstance to see that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Shri Kikani, learned advocate for the respondent has further contended that reasons, which are assigned by the learned Judge are also cogent enough to substantiate the ultimate conclusion and it has also been contended that the injured witness's testimony if to be looked into closely, the same is not inspiring any confidence to establish the guilt of the respondent. The learned Judge has considered each of testimony closely and has arrived at a conclusion and the said conclusion may not be substituted as the same is also a view, which is permissible looking to the evidence on record. While contending this, he further drawn our attention to the documents, which are on the record in which the discovery is made at the instance of respondent accused, but the same has not been proved in view of the principle laid down in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The panchas have not supported such discovery in the manner in which it is required and not only that, the investigating officer has also in his testimony has not established such discovery as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act and therefore, when the discovery is very doubtful as prevailing from the record, no benefit could have been given and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion. 14. Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion. 14. Shri Kikani, learned advocate further drawn our attention to the serological report, wherein the blood stains are not spotted on the 'Kharapiya' the weapon which is alleged to have been used by the accused and the same is not sent for FSL analysis, which is reflecting on page No. 461 and therefore, considering this overall material on record, he submitted that there is no error committed by the learned Judge in passing the order of acquittal and therefore, looking to the scope of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with the appeal against the order of acquittal, this is not a fit case in which the order requires any interference and have requested the Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the State. 15. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides and having gone through the reasons, which are assigned by the learned trial Judge and upon comprehensive analysis of the evidence independent of this, the following circumstances are not possible to be ignored, which are worth to be taken care of to arrive at ultimate conclusion, hence they are reproduced as under:- 16. A specific charge is levelled against the respondent-accused wherein the main charge is attributed to the accused Khimjibhai, who died during the passage of time and therefore, a charge of Section 307 and 114 of I.P.C. shall now has to be examined with respect to the present accused only. The prosecution with a view to establish the case against the respondent-accused has tried to rely upon the testimony of complainant Narmadaben P.W. -1, who is examined at Exh. 14. It appears from her testimony, which has been examined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that though the incident had occurred on previous day, the complaint has been lodged at a later point of time. It was her testimony, which has created a doubt in the case of prosecution on account of the fact that her initial version of Manubhai of village Ambala came to her house and informed her about the incident and resultantly she along with other person Hirabapa of the same village along with rikshawwala Nathabhai went to the spot and thereafter taken the injured to hospital. This version if to be looked into from the point of time of testimony of Balvantbhai, the version become doubtful because there is a specific assertion on the part of the Balvantbhai, who said to have accompanied the complainant, who examined as P.W. -8, has conveyed specifically in cross-examination that where the injured was lying, he was in bleeding condition and was not in a position to speak anything and this testimony of Balvantbhai dislodged the version not only of complainant, but also of Dayaljibhai, who had deposed at a later point of time. Yet another witness, who is examined by the prosecution as P.W. 10 Dr. Shailesh Patel has specifically opined in his cross-examination that the injury No. 4, which is stated to have been a serious injury cannot caused by weapon 'Kharapiya' and therefore, there appears to be a clear doubt about the use of the weapon and this material is reflected from the cross-examination, which has not generated any confidence in the version of the prosecution. Similarly, is the case with respect to the testimony of medical officer Dr. Modha, P.W. -11, who was examined at Exh. 37. In his cross-examination, he has categorically stated that normally whenever assaulted injury case comes to him, he is mentioning in the history of examination of patient. But, in this peculiar case, he has admitted that no such names are incorporated by him. He also deposed in his cross-examination that the injuries, which have been stated to be caused from 'Kharapiya' and the injuries, which are visible on the body part of the victim are not getting supported and therefore, in absence of such co-relation, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be so sound. It has also been further reflecting from the testimony of injured witness Dayaljibhai, who was examined at Exh. 48 in which there is an assertion that the respondent-accused Shantilal Khimjibhai had used 'Kharapiya' by giving and inflicting blow on the head. The medical evidence is indicating that such injury is not possible through 'Kharapiya' and therefore, there is hardly any credence in respect of the role, which attributed to the respondent-accused. 48 in which there is an assertion that the respondent-accused Shantilal Khimjibhai had used 'Kharapiya' by giving and inflicting blow on the head. The medical evidence is indicating that such injury is not possible through 'Kharapiya' and therefore, there is hardly any credence in respect of the role, which attributed to the respondent-accused. In addition thereto, the testimony of this witness is further revealing that this injured witness has admitted that he sustained injuries on account of pipe blow, which has been given and in fact, the injuries, which are reflected is by the pipe, which has been used by another accused i.e. Khimjibhai, who died during the passage of time and therefore, so far as this respondent is concerned, the consistency is not reflecting from ocular and medical evidence. In addition thereto, the conjoint reading of this testimony, it is reflecting that there appears to be some civil dispute going on, on account of which there may be a probability of wrongful involvement, which rightly has been appreciated and considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and therefore, from the evidence of injured witness also, the case of the prosecution has not got any corroboration. In furtherance of this, the examination of record indicates that apart from the dispute between the parties, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also found that the injured witness is not clearly deposing before the Court and is not giving correct version of the actual incident. On the contrary, the panchnama, which has been drawn by the investigating officer, who collected material, the said panchnama appears to have been undertaken almost after four days and therefore, corroboration qua that material is also missing with the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has further taken the statement of wife of Maheshbhai, which has also been examined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and found that the same as a result of deviation from the main assertion of the complainant and therefore, the conjoint reading of the said material has not sounded much in favour of the prosecution as found by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. In addition thereto, the record further indicates that the blood stained clothes have not been sent for analysis nor has been recovered. Sessions Judge. In addition thereto, the record further indicates that the blood stained clothes have not been sent for analysis nor has been recovered. However, if the version of the prosecution is to be accepted, then there must be some blood stain either in the rickshaw or on the clothes of rickshaw driver, who helped the injured to be placed in the rickshaw. In addition thereto, the entire evidence is indicative of the fact that the injured was in an unconscious state of mind and was lying on the place of occurrence and was not in a position to speak and therefore, that has created a serious doubt in the version of complainant and therefore, on the basis of overall analysis of complainant on the basis of another witness Mr. Valimamad and after considering the testimony of Nathabhai, it has been found by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that there seems to be no co-relation or consistency. 17. We have examined further testimony of both those witnesses, which are tried to be placed on service, we find that the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in appreciation of evidence is also possible view and therefore, since these two witnesses have not inspired any confidence in the case of the prosecution, it is not possible for us to dislodge the finding arrived at by the learned trial Judge more particularly, when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge considered the evidence to the satisfaction. In addition thereto, the entire record further indicates that there is no cogent material sufficient enough to indicate that the injury has been caused by this present respondent accused and therefore, in absence of any satisfactory proof with regard to the role played by the respondent-accused, it is not possible for this Court to alter benefit granted to the respondent. 18. On overall consideration of the material on record and on our comprehensive analysis of material in the context of reasons assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the view, which has been taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge appears to be a plausible view and therefore, if any view is possible other then the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the view, which has been taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge appears to be a plausible view and therefore, if any view is possible other then the view taken by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, we are not in a position to dislodge or substitute the same and therefore, considering this overall analysis no case is made-out by the State so cogently to connect and held the respondent-accused guilty of the offence for which he has been tried. 19. We are mindful of the limitations, which are prescribed by catena of decisions in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and some of the decisions delivered by the apex Court are if considered in relation to the reasons, which are assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, we are unable to interfere with the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. We may refer to some of the well defined proposition enunciated by the Supreme Court in respect of exercise of appellate jurisdiction and we deem it proper to incorporate the same in the present judgment which substantiates the conclusion which has been arrived at by us and therefore, same are reproduced hereinafter: 19.1 In a decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar V/s. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 353 , it was observed that if two views are possible, the High Court should hold 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. 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. 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 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." 57. 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). 19.2 In yet another decision in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama Vs. State of Karnataka, 2014 (9) SCC 365 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed as observed in paragraph Nos. 30 and 31. 19.3 In the case of Upendra Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, 2015 (5) Scale 634 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when there are two views culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision reads thus: "10. 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. 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 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." 19.4 The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa Vs. State, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph Nos. 21 observed thus: "21. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. 21 observed thus: "21. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. In State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary (2005) 8 SCC 364 , this Court reiterated the well settled principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court and that only where the material on record leads to an inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 . 20. In view of the aforesaid circumstance and in view of our comprehensive analysis with the entire evidence on record, we consider that the reasons, which are assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and the conclusion, which has been arrived at is a plausible view and there seem to be no other contrary view possible to dislodge the finding and therefore, keeping in view the peripheral limit of appellate jurisdiction, while dealing with the order of acquittal, we are of the view that there is no legal infirmity or perversity, which can be said to have caused any miscarriage of justice and therefore, in this background of the situation, we are of the view that appeal filed by the State deserve to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order, dated 30th June 2006, passed in Sessions Case No. 45 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jamnagar, is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.