JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present appeals have been preferred by the appellant/State laying challenge to judgment, dated 30.10.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2010, whereby accused Ramesh Chand was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and he was convicted under Section 324 IPC. However, the accused was released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accused Rachna Devi was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under: On 18.11.2009, at about 02.30 p.m. at village Dehlan Ramesh Chand and Rachna Devi (the accused persons) went to the field of one Balwant Rai (complainant) and at that time the complainant alongwith his daughters-in-law, namely, Manjeet Kaur and Neena Devi, was working in his field. Accused Ramesh Chand was having spade and accused Rachna Devi was having sickle and they asked the complainant as to why their boundary is being uprooted. The complainant replied that they were not uprooting the boundary. The accused persons got exasperated and accused Ramesh Chand inflicted a spade blow on the head of the complainant and accused Rachna Devi inflicted a sickle blow on the right hand thumb of the complainant. The complainant was shifted by his daughters-in-law to PHC Dehlan and he returned home after having first aid. Subsequently, the matter was amicably settled amongst the parties and to this effect a compromise deed prepared. The condition of the complainant deteriorated, therefore he was again treated at PHC, Dehlan. Statement of the complainant was recorded by the police in PHC, Dehlan, and he was shifted firstly to R.H. Una, then to Chandigarh and ultimately to Ludhiana for medical treatment. The complainant lost his memory owing to head injury and on 23.11.2009 police of Police Post Mehatpur received a telephonic message that an injured person was taken to PHC Dehlan. On the basis of the telephonic message, report No. 12, dated 23.11.2009 was recorded and police went to PHC Dehlan, where the statement of the complainant was recorded, which was sent to Police Sation, Una. Upon the statement of the complainant, a case FIR was registered. On the basis of the telephonic message, report No. 12, dated 23.11.2009 was recorded and police went to PHC Dehlan, where the statement of the complainant was recorded, which was sent to Police Sation, Una. Upon the statement of the complainant, a case FIR was registered. Police prepared the spot map, recovered spade and sickle and took into possession the compromise deed. Police also procured jamabandi of the spot, where the occurrence alleged to have taken place. Medical record qua the complainant was also procured. The statements of the witnesses were also recorded. After completion of the investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However, the accused persons did not examine any defence witness. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 30.10.2010, convicted accused Ramesh Chand for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, but he was given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and was released, whereas accused Rachna Devi was acquitted, hence the present appeals preferred by the State. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC, as offence under Section 323 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC stands proved against him. Thus, benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act has wrongly been given to accused Ramesh Chand. He has further argued that the prosecution has clearly proved the guilt of both the accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts, so the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court be set aside and the accused persons be convicted. Conversely, the learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused Ramesh Chand and accused Rachna Devi has also been rightly acquitted. He has further argued that the material available on record clearly and unambiguously shows that there is nothing against the accused persons, thus the judgment, as recorded by the learned Trial Court is just, reasoned and the same needs no interference and so the appeals be dismissed. 6. He has further argued that the material available on record clearly and unambiguously shows that there is nothing against the accused persons, thus the judgment, as recorded by the learned Trial Court is just, reasoned and the same needs no interference and so the appeals be dismissed. 6. In rebuttal, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there is ample material on record, which clearly proves the guilt of accused Rachna Devi, so the appeals be allowed. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we have gone through the record carefully. 8. In the case in hand, the statement of the complainant, who was examined as PW-1, is very vital. He has deposed that on 18.11.2009, he alongwith his daughters-in-law, was carving a drain in his field. He has further deposed that accused Ramesh Chand, who has having spade in his hand, and accused Rachna Devi, who was having sickle in her hand, came there and complained that their boundary had been uprooted by the complainant party. Accused Ramesh Chand then inflicted a blow of spade on his head and Accused Rachna Devi inflicted a blow with the sickle and he fell down. He was rescued by his daughters-in-law, namely Manjit and Neena Devi, and subsequently he was taken to PHC Dehlan. Thereafter, he came back to his house and the matter was compromised. The accused persons undertook to bear the expenses of his medical treatment. Afterwards, his condition deteriorated and he was shifted to PHC, Dehlan, where the police recorded his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. which is Ex. PW-1/B. He has feigned his ignorance that from Dehlan he was taken to which place for his medical treatment, as he was not mentally and physically fit. He lost his memory due to the head injury. This witness was declared hostile and was subjected to cross-examination, however, nothing fruitful could be extracted from him. He has deposed, in his cross-examination, that a partition case is pending inter se the complainant party and the accused persons. He has deposed that there is cemented water drain in between his field and the field of Surinder Bhardwaj. He has deposed that his son-in-law, Constable Banwari Lal, was present in the Police Post, at the relevant time. 9. The statement of Smt. Manjit Kaur (PW-2), daughter-in-law of the complainant, is also very important. He has deposed that there is cemented water drain in between his field and the field of Surinder Bhardwaj. He has deposed that his son-in-law, Constable Banwari Lal, was present in the Police Post, at the relevant time. 9. The statement of Smt. Manjit Kaur (PW-2), daughter-in-law of the complainant, is also very important. This witness, in her examination-in-chief, tried to support the version of PW-1 (complainant), so her version, in her examination-in-chief, is repetitive in nature to that of PW-1. She has deposed in her cross-examination that where they were working in the field, adjoining thereto there were fields of other persons. She has deposed that their family had land dispute with the accused persons qua the partition. 10. PW-3, Shri Mehar Chand, is a witness of recovery of spade, Ex. P-1 and sickle, Ex. P-2. As per this witness, the spade and sickle were taken into possession vide memos, Ex. PW-1/C and Ex.PW-1/D, respectively. As there is no dispute qua the recovery of spade and sickle from the accused persons, thus the statement of this witness is formal in nature. 11. PW-4, Shri Tarsem Lal, is a witness to compromise, dated 20.11.2009, which was effected between the complainant and the accused persons. As per this witness, in his presence the compromise was effected and the contents thereof were readover and explained to the complainant and accused Ramesh Chand. He has further deposed that compromise was signed by complainant Balwant Rai, accused Ramesh Chand, Jagdish Kumar and Satpal. He has also signed the compromise as a witness. On 09.12.2009 police took into possession compromise, vide memo Ex. PW-1/E. PW-5, Shri Ashwani Kumar Patwari, gave jamabandi, Ex. PW-5/A, to the police. He has deposed that as per the record, accused Ramesh has been recorded as owner to the extent of 1/8th share and Balwant Rai (complainant) to the extent of 1/6th share on khasra No. 1477. 12. PW-6, Dr. Indu Bhadwaj, the then Medical Officer deposed that complainant remained admitted for basic nursing care for three days and on 27.11.2009 he developed hemiparasis paralysis of ½ of the body, however the attendants were reluctant to take the patient to PGI. As per this witness, there was fracture on left parietal bone with pnumoencephalous with head injury and the injury was dangerous to life. She has further deposed that injury could be possible with spade, Ex.P-1. 13. PW-7, Dr. As per this witness, there was fracture on left parietal bone with pnumoencephalous with head injury and the injury was dangerous to life. She has further deposed that injury could be possible with spade, Ex.P-1. 13. PW-7, Dr. Suresh Kumar, Medical Officer, PHC, Dehlan, deposed that on 18.11.2009 the complainant came to him with head injury and wound on left wrist joint. He advised X-ray examination and stitched the wound. On 23.11.2009, the complainant came in deteriorated condition. As per the version of this witness, on 18.11.2009 he advised the complainant to come with his relatives and inform the police, as the complainant had suffered injuries in a quarrel. However he did not come and only took medicines, which were prescribed by him on prescription slip, which is Ex.PW-7/A. He noticed the following injuries on the person of the complainant: 1. A wound on scalp on right parietal bone region in between, which was 7 x 2 x 2 cm in size, which was bleeding profusely, so he applied stitches. 2. Wound on left wrist joint 3 x 1 cm anticeptic dressing done. Abrasion and contusion right side of arm. He further deposed that injury No. 1 was dangerous to life and could be caused with blunt weapon. Injury No. 2 was simple in nature and could be caused with sharp edged weapon. He issued MLC, Ex. PW-7/B. 14. PW-8, Constable Pushpinder Kumar, deposed that on 23.11.2009, at about 03:20 p.m. telephonic information was received from PHC Dehlan, which was recorded in daily diary register, copy of which is Ex.PW-8/A. 15. PW-9, HHC Mohinder Kumar, deposed that on 23.11.2009 HC Randhir Singh handed over to him the statement of the complainant, which is Ex. PW-1/B. He submitted the same before SHO Police Station, Una, whereupon case was registered and case file was handed over to him, which he handed over to the Investigating Officer. 16. PW-10, HC Randhir Singh, deposed that on 23.11.2009 a telephonic information was received in Police Post, Mehatpur, whereupon report, Ex. PW-8/A, was recorded. He moved application, Ex. PW-10/A, to the Medical Officer seeking opinion that the complainant is fit to give his statement or not. As per the Medical Officer, the complainant was fit to give statement, thus he recorded his statement, Ex. PW-1/B, and sent the same to Police Station, Una, through Constable HHC Mohinder Singh. PW-8/A, was recorded. He moved application, Ex. PW-10/A, to the Medical Officer seeking opinion that the complainant is fit to give his statement or not. As per the Medical Officer, the complainant was fit to give statement, thus he recorded his statement, Ex. PW-1/B, and sent the same to Police Station, Una, through Constable HHC Mohinder Singh. After registration of the FIR, case file was given to him by HHC Mohinder Singh. 17. PW-11, Inspector Ram Karan, deposed that after completion of investigation, ASI Sewa Singh handed over him the case file. He prepared the challan and SI Rajinder Kumar submitted the same in the Court. 18. PW-12, Dr. Rajesh Chhabra, the then Assistant Professor Department of Neuro surgery, P.G.I. Chandigarh, deposed that on 23.11.2009 the complainant was brought to P.G.I. with alleged history of assault on 18.11.2009. On local examination, there was sutured wound on the scalp and C.T. Scan showed that there was fracture of left parietal bone with pneumocephaslus. He has further deposed that the complainant was conservatively treated and referred to District Hospital on 24.11.2009. 19. PW-13, Dr. R.K. Kaushal, the then Professor and Head of Department of Neuro Surgery, D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana, deposed that on 27.11.2009 the complainant was admitted in their hospital with history of weakness of right side of the body, difficulty in speaking and memory loss. He further deposed that the complainant had history of assault on 18.11.2009. The CT scan showed depressed fracture of left parietal area with pneumocephalus (air in the brain), thus he was operated on 28.11.2009. During the surgery, the complainant was found having infection, however, he improved on conservative treatment and was discharged on 08.12.2009. He gave treatment summary to the police, which is Ex. PW-13/B. He has further deposed that injuries on the head of the complainant could have been dangerous to his life. 20. PW-14, SI Rajinder Kumar, deposed that on 23.11.2009 on the basis of rukka, Ex. PW-1/B, he registered FIR, Ex. PW-14/A. On 24.11.2009 he visited the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of Smt. Manjit Kaur (PW-2). 21. PW-15, ASI Sewa Singh, Investigating Officer, deposed that on 26.11.2009 investigation was handed over to him and he partly investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, the complainant produced compromise, Ex. PW-1/B, he registered FIR, Ex. PW-14/A. On 24.11.2009 he visited the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of Smt. Manjit Kaur (PW-2). 21. PW-15, ASI Sewa Singh, Investigating Officer, deposed that on 26.11.2009 investigation was handed over to him and he partly investigated the matter. During the course of investigation, the complainant produced compromise, Ex. PW-1/A, which was taken into possession vide memo, Ex.PW-1/E. He further deposed that on 18.12.2009 accused Ramesh Chand produced a spade (Ex. P-1), which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. He prepared the sketch of the spade, which is Ex. PW-3/A. On the same day accused Rachna Devi produced a sickle (Ex. P-2), which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. He also prepared the sketch of sickle, which is Ex. PW-3/B. He obtained the treatment summaries of the complainant, which are Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-6/B. As per the version of this witness, the recovered spade and sickle were shown to the medical expert and it was opined that injuries sustained by the complainant could be caused by the said recovered weapons. 22. After discussing the entire prosecution evidence, it is apt to notice that in appeal against accused Ramesh Chand, the State has prayed that accused Ramesh Chand, who at the time of the occurrence, was 56 years of age attempted to murder Shri Balwant Rai (complainant), who was 72 years of age, so the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act could not have been granted to him. The State has also maintained an appeal against accused Rachna Devi, wherein it is prayed that she be convicted after setting aside the judgment of the learned Trial Court. The complainant has also maintained appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2011) in this Hon’ble High Court, whereby he has laid challenge to the judgment of the learned Trial Court, but the same was dismissed on 16.09.2016 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and it was held vide paras 24, 25, 26 and 28 as under: “24. Prosecution also relied upon compromise dated 20.11.2009 arrived at between parties after the incident. In this compromise, it was mentioned in clear words that respondent Ramesh Chand abused and beat PW-1 Balwant Rai and respondent Ramesh Chand confessed his fault and PW-1 Balwant Rai admonished him. There was no reference about even slightest involvement of respondent Rachna Devi in incident. 25. In this compromise, it was mentioned in clear words that respondent Ramesh Chand abused and beat PW-1 Balwant Rai and respondent Ramesh Chand confessed his fault and PW-1 Balwant Rai admonished him. There was no reference about even slightest involvement of respondent Rachna Devi in incident. 25. The matter was reported to Police on 23.11.2009 after five days of incident. There was possibility to improvement at the time of lodging FIR after five days to involve respondent No. 2 Rachna Devi being wife of respondent Ramesh Chand because of afterthought for revenge. There was no other evidence regarding involvement of respondent No. 2 Rachana Devi in the incident so as to held her liable for act of respondent Ramesh Chand punishable under Section 34 IPC. Therefore, there was no sufficient material to invoke Section 34 IPC, to hold respondent Rachna Devi liable for committing an offence in furtherance of common intention for common object with respondent Ramesh Chand. Trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent Rachna Devi and therefore, no interference is warranted to disturb her acquittal. 26. So far as conviction of respondent Ramesh Chand under Section 324 IPC, the same was not challenged by respondent Ramesh Chand. However, he was released by trial Court on probation by giving benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offender Act 1958. The said release of respondent has also been challenged by appellant. ........................ 28. After giving our anxious consideration to the contention urged by counsel for appellant we are of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error in releasing respondent Ramesh Chand on probation of good conduct. Respondent No. 1 is not dangerous criminal but a person who surrendered to temptation. The occurrence in question was a out come of a sudden flare-up. The respondent was 55 years of age at the time of occurrence. He was released on probation of good conduct in the year 2010. The incident had taken place on account of sudden boundary dispute. Respondent Ramesh Chand cannot be compared with hard core criminal or person having a criminal intent to commit crime to murder PW-1 with pre-mediation. Also from compromise dated 20.11.2009, it can be inferred that respondent had realized his mistake and after his repentance matter was compromised. The incident had taken place on account of sudden boundary dispute. Respondent Ramesh Chand cannot be compared with hard core criminal or person having a criminal intent to commit crime to murder PW-1 with pre-mediation. Also from compromise dated 20.11.2009, it can be inferred that respondent had realized his mistake and after his repentance matter was compromised. It is also relevant that at the time of compromise there was no police complaint pending against respondent Ramesh Chand and therefore compromise was not under pressure but only of repentance. There is nothing on record to reflect conduct of respondent Ramesh Chand warranting interference of this Court after releasing him on probation of good conduct. For these reasons, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere in release of respondent under Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.” In the judgment (supra) the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while dismissing the appeal, so filed by the complainant, has exhaustively discussed the entire evidence and appreciated the same and now the judgment, dismissing the appeal of the complainant, has attained finality. Thus, we do not deem it fit to re-appreciate the evidence and notice contradictions, lacunae etc. in the same. At the same point of time, the learned Additional Advocate General could not point out anything emanating from the record, which may compel us to consider or even think that the matter requires reconsideration by this Court. 23. Thus, after going through the record in detail, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in giving benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused Ramesh Chand. The learned Trial Court has also rightly acquitted Rachna Devi, as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove her involvement in the alleged offence. Thus, it is more than safe to hold that the learned Trial Court has rightly granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to accused Ramesh Chand and accused Rachna Devi has also been rightly acquitted and the findings to this effect are not perverse. Hence, there is no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 24. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. Hence, there is no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 24. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 26. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: “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, 1873 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 emphasise 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. 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.” 27. In view of the settled legal position, as aforesaid, on the basis of material which has come on record and also keeping in view the decision rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2011, decided on 16.09.2016, titled as Balwant Rai vs. Ramesh Chand, it is more than safe to hold that the learned Trial Court has rightly granted the benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act to accused Ramesh Chand and the same needs no interference. This Court also finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused Rachna Devi and the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned Trial Court, in her favour, need no interference, as the same are the result of appreciating the facts and law correctly and in its true perspective. Accordingly, the appeals, which are without merits, deserve dismissal and are accordingly dismissed. 28. The appeals, so also pending applications, if any, shall stands disposed of accordingly.