JUDGMENT : MOHINDER PAL, J. 1. This appeal under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred against the order of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.162 of 1996 dated 5.7.1997 under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. Police came into action after recording statement of Danabhai Meghabhai Ahir, who is resident of Zanzmer, Taluka: Umrala. Danabhai got recorded that he was running a shop of Pan-bidi at Dhola village. They were three brothers including the deceased engaged in the business of diamond polishing. On 17.09.1996 at about 8 O'clock in the morning, he went to the shop located at Dhola Junction. In the evening, at about 9.45 p.m., Ahir Vasirbhai Kalabhai of their village came to him on motorcycle and told that Ahir Bachubhai Valabhai and his son Bhupat Bachubhai assaulted Punjabhai with pipe and sticks. On hearing this news, Danabhai moved towards his village: Zanzmer. When he has reached near the outskirts of the village, he met his uncle Ramabhai Devabhai who was taking his brother Punjabhai to the Hospital on three wheeler tempo. Complainant saw that his brother, viz. Punjabhai sustained contusion injuries on head, and was bleeding from ear. His right hand was fractured and blows of pipe and sticks were visible on his entire body. He was unconscious. Ahir Karshanbhai Nanubhai, Dayabhai Rambhai and Jivabhai Bhimkhabhai etc. people of their village were sitting in the tempo and upon further inquiry, complainant came to know that at about 8.00 p.m., Ahir Bachubhai Valabhai and his son Bhupat Bachubhai caused injuries by assaulting with stick and pipe and Karshanbhai Nanubhai had witnessed the incident. As Punjabhai had sustained serious injuries, he was unconscious and they took him to the clinic of Dr.Goti at Dhola Village and the doctor told them to take the injured to Bhavnagar immediately, after administering the bottle of medicine. The complainant and other persons hired a matador of Firozbhai of Dhola village and brought Punjabhai to a private hospital of Dr.Rana at about 11 O'clock in the night. Punjabhai was admitted in the hospital for treatment. However, Punjabhai died at about 1.45 a.m. during intervening night of 17.09.1996 and/or 18.09.1996. 3. As per complainant, the reason for these injuries was that 2-3 years ago, his brother Punjabhai had thrown stone which injured Bacubhai Valabhai. Punjabhai was admitted in the hospital for treatment. However, Punjabhai died at about 1.45 a.m. during intervening night of 17.09.1996 and/or 18.09.1996. 3. As per complainant, the reason for these injuries was that 2-3 years ago, his brother Punjabhai had thrown stone which injured Bacubhai Valabhai. A quarrel took place regarding this incident but complaint was not lodged. Keeping grudge for this incident, Bachubhai Valabhai caused injuries to the brother of the complainant which resulted into his death. 4. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted in the hospital. Thereafter, dead body was handed over to the family and was cremated. Police recorded statements of other witness including injured witness, Karshanbhai. Police also inspected the spots, prepared inquest report and completed formalities. The weapons of offence were recovered and sealed the cloth worn by the deceased were made into a parcel and sent for serological examination. Final challan was presented in the Court. 5. As the case under Section 302 IPC was made out against the accused, the case was committed to the Court of sessions. Charge was framed, accused did not plead guilt and claimed trial. 6. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including the injured eye-witness, PW-4, Karshanbhai, whose evidence is available at Exh.24 and Doctors who have treated the injured as well as conducted postmortem examination. 7. Prosecution also examined the Investigating Officer and formal witnesses and tendered into evidence the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. 8. Trial Court recorded acquittal of the accused while discarding the evidence of injured eye-witness, Karshanbhai, on the ground that he was inimical towards the accused as having prior litigation with them. Learned Sessions Judge further disbelieved statement of Karshanbhai on the ground that he was discrepant about the date when he received injury on his leg. While relying upon the aforementioned discrepancies, trial Court acquitted the accused. Aggrieved from this decision, prosecution has come in appeal which is pending for disposal. 9. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has argued that the injuries found on person were caused with iron pipe and wooden stick. Apart from injuries on the deceased, the accused persons have caused injuries to Karshanbhai, eye-witness, who has supported the case of prosecution. Trial Court wrongly disbelieved the evidence of the injured eye-witness and has acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. Apart from injuries on the deceased, the accused persons have caused injuries to Karshanbhai, eye-witness, who has supported the case of prosecution. Trial Court wrongly disbelieved the evidence of the injured eye-witness and has acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds. It has been argued that the incident had taken place near Shiv Temple of the village where number of other villagers have also seen the occurrence. However, because of the caste groups in the village, other witnesses have not come forward and Trial Court without taking into account the gravity of situation, has wrongly acquitted the accused. 10. On the other hand, appearing on behalf of the accused persons, it has been argued that the injured eye-witness had prior enmity with the accused. Civil litigation was going on between Karshanbhai and the accused on account of land dispute going on between the Karshanbhai and the accused and Trial Court, taking into account all aspects of the case, has acquitted the accused. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on file as well as translated documents available with the file. 12. Death of Punjabhai is homicidal which is apparent from the evidence of Danabhai as well as from the investigation by the police. Apart from the aforementioned evidence, the homicidal death is further proved from the evidence of PW-3, Exh.21, Dr.Harkantbhai Bhaishankar Rajyaguru, Medical Officer, Bhavnagar. 13. On 17.09.1996 and 18.09.1996, he was on night duty as Medical Officer, Refugee Camp, Bhavnagar. On 18.09.1996 at about 6.45 a.m. he received dead body of Punjabhai. Rigor mortis was present all over the body and P.M. lividity was seen all over dependent part of the body. On postmortem examination, he found following external injuries on the dead body of the deceased, Punjabhai which are mentioned in column No.17 of his postmortem note: (1) Contusion on left hypocondriac region lateral aspect of abdomin, oblique size 10 cm x 2 cm colour red. (2) A contusion on right side of chest, lower aspect just above right hypocondric region, transvers in direction size 8 cm x 2 cm. colour red. (3) Contusion on right thigh, middle 1/3 medial aspect size 8 cm x 2 cm, colour red. (4) A contusion on right thigh, middle 1/3 lateral aspect size 10 cm x 2 cm. colour red. (5) Abrasion left knee, Ant. colour red. (3) Contusion on right thigh, middle 1/3 medial aspect size 8 cm x 2 cm, colour red. (4) A contusion on right thigh, middle 1/3 lateral aspect size 10 cm x 2 cm. colour red. (5) Abrasion left knee, Ant. aspect from above downward size 2 cm X 1/ 2 cm, colour reddish brown. (6) Abrasion on left thigh Ant. aspect, 7 cm above injury No.5 size 3 cm x 1 cm, colour reddish brown, direction from above down wards. (7) Contusion right upper arm upper 1/3 lateral aspect, starting from just below shoulder to upper 1/3 of upper arm diffused one, colour red. (8) Contusion right upper arm middle 1/3 lateral aspect size 10 cm x 2 cm 5. On palpation, I found that plaster, bandages were given over right upper extrimity which was removed by me and clinically I found that there was fracture of right humerus at the junction of upper 2/3 and lower 1/3 which was confirmed by opening it. 6. On internal examination, I found following injuries:- (1) Haematoma below the skin of left occipital region about 100 to 150 cc of clotted blood found. (2) Depressed fracture on left side of occipital bone. Bone piece is pushed inside brain. There is tare of dura matter on left occipital lobe of cerebral hemispher with lacertion of brain tissu. 7. I have also shown the picture of the injury in my PM Notes. 8. There was semi-digested food material found inside stomach and greenish yellow liquid was present in small intestine and there was some post loaded in big intestine. 9. 5cc sample boced was collected from the dead body of deceased which was packed in one glass bottle which was sealed and sent to police station for chemical analysis. 10. In my opinion, cause of death was shock due to head injury and injury to brain tissue. In my opinion, all these injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In my opinion, all these injuries must have been caused during 6 to 12 hours before I commenced PM examination. All these injuries are possible by hard and blunt substance. I am shown muddamal article No.7 and 10 stick and pipe respectively. On seeing these articles I say that these injuries are possible by these 2 weapons muddamal article No.7 and 10. All these injuries are possible by hard and blunt substance. I am shown muddamal article No.7 and 10 stick and pipe respectively. On seeing these articles I say that these injuries are possible by these 2 weapons muddamal article No.7 and 10. I have prepared PM notes in my own hand writing which bears my signature. Its contents are true and correct. It is produced in this case at Mark 7/20 which is now exhibited as Exh.22. The clothes which were on the dead body of the deceased were removed by me and were sent to police. Bottle of the blood sample was also sent to police. PSI A division police station had written one yadi which is mark 7/9. It is now exhibited and produced at Exh.23. 14. So, from the ocular version as well as evidence of the Doctor, there is no doubt that Punjabhai died because of the injuries received by him at night and he died in the intervening night of 17.09.1996 and/or 18.09.1996. 15. The main witness of the incident is PW-4, Karshanbhai, whose evidence is available at Exh.24. This witness has reiterated the version given in the FIR and as stated before 3 years, from the date of recording of a statement, deceased, Punjabhai had hit accused No.2 with a stone on his head which caused bleeding. After that a dispute remained between both of them and they were not on speaking terms. 16. On 17.09.1996 at about 8.30 O'clock in the night, he left his home to go to farm. The road to his farm passes from the Panchayat Office which is known as Navapar area. When he was passing form Navapar area, both the accused persons i.e. Bachubhai Valabhai and his son Bhupat were beating Punjabhai. At that time, Bhupatbhai was armed with pipe and Bachubhai had a stick. This incident was occurring near the house of Danabhai Jadavbhai Koli. Both the accused persons were beating Punjabhai by respective weapons. Accused No.1, Bhupatbhai gave two blows of iron pipe on Punjabhai's head. Karshanbhai told the accused persons not to beat the Punjabhai. However, these persons kept on beating Punjabhai even though, he had collapsed. Karshanbhai, in order to save Punjabhai, intervened, however, accused No.1, Bhupatbhai gave a pipe blow on left leg of Karshanbhai. Karshanbhai was warned to keep outside from this fight failing which he will have to suffer. Karshanbhai told the accused persons not to beat the Punjabhai. However, these persons kept on beating Punjabhai even though, he had collapsed. Karshanbhai, in order to save Punjabhai, intervened, however, accused No.1, Bhupatbhai gave a pipe blow on left leg of Karshanbhai. Karshanbhai was warned to keep outside from this fight failing which he will have to suffer. After causing injuries, both the accused persons ran away from that place. Karshanbhai along with Vajsurbhai Kanabhai, Dayabhai Ramabhai, Jivabhai Bhikhabhai, Arjan Rana and other persons came there. They arranged a tempo from Village: Dhola and at that time, Punjabhai was speaking a little. After this, they moved towards hospital. However, when they were just outside their village at that time, they met Danabhai, brother of the deceased, across bank of the river of their village. Danabhai looked at his brother. Karshanbhai accompanied the injured to the hospital and remained with them till the body was handed over and finally cremated in the village. In the cross examination, he has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police on 18.09.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. 17. Apart from the aforementioned evidence, the prosecution has examined PW-5, Dr.Jagdishbhai, Medical Officer, CHC, Sinhor, Bhavnagar. This Doctor on 19.09.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. examined Karshanbhai Nanubhai of village: Zanzmer of Umrala Taluka who had come with the police yadi. He was examined following external injuries: 1. He was conscious and history given by him was to the effect that he was assaulted by pipe and pipe blow was given on him yesterday at 8.00 p.m. 2. There was swelling over left leg interior aspect of middle part with tenderness. There was no fracture. 18. The evidence of injured eye-witness is consistent. The ocular versions given by the complainant is fully corroborated by Karshanbhai. The injuries received by Karshanbhai further proved the fact that he was present at the time of occurrence and has received injuries while trying to intervene and save Punjabhai from the hands of accused persons. 19. Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of this witness simply on the ground that while being cross examined, this witness has stated that he received injury on 18.09.1996. Trial Court reached to conclusion that if the incident had taken place on 17.09.1996 at about 8.30 p.m. how Karshanbhai received injury on 18.09.1996. 19. Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of this witness simply on the ground that while being cross examined, this witness has stated that he received injury on 18.09.1996. Trial Court reached to conclusion that if the incident had taken place on 17.09.1996 at about 8.30 p.m. how Karshanbhai received injury on 18.09.1996. Further, Trial Court disbelieved this witness on the ground that he was having prior enmity with the accused persons and civil litigation was going on between them. 20. We have considered the arguments of both the sides in this regard. There is nothing on file to suggest that Karshanbhai was not present at the time of incident simply for the reasons that he has stated that injuries on person were received on 18.09.1996 and not on 17.09.1996. This is particularly so, when Karshanbhai's statement has been recorded by the police on 18.09.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. wherein he has stated that he received injuries on his leg when he was trying to intervene and save Punjabhai. Once a statement given by Karshanbhai has been recorded by the police on 18.09.1996, the statement given in the Court or by the Doctor is meaningless. 21. Another reasoning recorded by the Court while acquitting the accused is prior enmity of Karshanbhai with the accused persons. It is well known fact that prior enmity is a double edged weapon which can be used to falsely implicate the accused and at the same time can be reason to cause injuries. Karshanbhai has stated in many words that two years prior to incident, deceased Punjabhai has caused head injury to accused No.1 and because of this injury, they were not on speaking terms. So, prior enmity with Punjabhai and Karshanbhai could be a reason to cause injuries by the accused persons as a result of which Punjabhai died while Karshanbhai escaped with minor injuries on his leg. 22. Apart from medical evidence, ocular version, serological reports and other circumstances also point to guilt of the accused. The accused in their statement made under Section 313 have stated that Karshanbhai had deposed against them because of prior enmity. However, they are silent as far as author of the FIR i.e. brother of the deceased is concerned. 23. This incident had taken place in the heart of the village. Number of persons have witnessed this incident. The accused in their statement made under Section 313 have stated that Karshanbhai had deposed against them because of prior enmity. However, they are silent as far as author of the FIR i.e. brother of the deceased is concerned. 23. This incident had taken place in the heart of the village. Number of persons have witnessed this incident. It is strange that nobody from the side of the complainant except Karshanbhai has come forward to depose against the accused persons. It is equally important that accused persons have failed to adduce any evidence in their support, and failed to examine the defence witness and falsify the version of the prosecution. Still further they are silent as to why the complainants have implicated them in this case. 24. It could be seen that incident has taken place at about 8.30 p.m. on 17.09.1996. Immediately, thereafter injured has been taken to the hospital. It is recorded by the Doctors that Punjabhai had received injuries in a fight with the stick and rod. FIR has been lodged on the same day at about 11.00 p;m. by brother of the deceased. Both the accused persons are specifically named in the FIR and the manner in which injuries have been caused to Punjabhai. There is no overt act by the prosecution or the witnesses to falsely implicate other members of the family or to introduce false witnesses. We are of the considered opinion that Trial Court has committed an error by disbelieving the evidence of PW-4, Karshanbhai which is corroborated by medical evidence, serological examination report as well as other circumstances of the case. 25. It is well settled law that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court should be slow to disturb the findings of the Trial Court which has opportunity of seen the witnesses while deposing in the Court. In an appeal of acquittal, there is no embargo for re-appreciating the evidence and taking a different view unless there are strong circumstances to reverse the order of acquittal. The scope and power of Appellate Courts are well defined in various judgments including judgment of Chandrapa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 . 26. We have gone through the reliance led in the aforementioned judgment. The scope and power of Appellate Courts are well defined in various judgments including judgment of Chandrapa Vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 . 26. We have gone through the reliance led in the aforementioned judgment. However, in the present case, the Trial Court seems to have not properly appreciated the evidence and findings which are perverse at the face of it. When the approach of the Trial Court is perverse and there is an appeal against the order of acquittal, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence recorded in the Trial Court. 27. This court is therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse and irrational and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 28. As a result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.7.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar in Sessions Case No.162 of 1996 is quashed and set aside. The respondents - original accused persons are held guilty jointly and severalty for causing injuries to the deceased, therefore, the respondents - original accused are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with sections 34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were required to be heard on the quantum of sentence. As we propose to impose the minimum sentence for the offence committed by the accused, personal hearing of the accused on quantum of sentence is dispensed with. Both the accused, viz. Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda and Bachubhai Valabhai Chavada are sentenced to undergo R.I. for life imprisonment. Bail bonds, if any, stand canceled. R & P to be sent back to the Trial Court forthwith. 29. The respondents-original accused are directed to surrender before the concerned Sessions Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of this order, failing which, the concerned Sessions Court shall issue non-bailable warrant to effect the arrest of the respondents-original accused.