JUDGMENT Gangele, J--1. State has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.2.1994 passed in S. T. No.199/92. trial Court acquitted the appellants from the charge of commission of offence punishable under sections 307 and 307/34 of IPC. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant Maujilal and his brother Bhauji and appellants are neighbour. On the date of the incident i.e. 14.7.1992 a quarrel had taken place between appellants and complainant. Hens of complainant Jhadu entered the house of Maujilal on this his wife Ithabai told the wife of Jhadu that she would take care of Hens. On this ground there was a quarrel between both the ladies. Subsequently, wife of Bhauji also went there, when Maujilal and Bhauji were taking their wives appellants had inflicted injuries by Axe on them. One of the accused Natthulal also received injuries. 3. Maujilal PW2 and Bhauji PW3 both deposed that appellants had inflicted injuries on them by Axe. PW2 deposed the same facts that a quarrel was going on between the ladies on the ground of Hens and I tried to pacify quarrel, thereafter appellants had inflicted injuries on me and Bhauji. Natthu had inflicted blow of Axe on me while Jhadu had inflicted blow on my brother Bhauji. A report was lodged at the Police Station. In his crossexamination he stated that he could not say anything, if Natthu had received any injury. However, he admitted the fact that Natthu was also in the hospital and he was examined by the Doctor. 4. Bhauji PW3 another witness complainant Bhauji deposed the same facts that there was a quarrel between the ladies on Hens and in that quarrel appellants had inflicted injuries on me and another complainant. He further deposed that Jhadu inflicted a blow of Axe on back side to me and before that Natthu Lal inflicted blow of Axe on head of my brother. 5. Chhunnilal PW4 also deposed that appellants had beaten the complainants. 6. Dr. Pankaj Dubey PW7 who examined the complainants deposed that he examined Maujilal and noticed one incise wound on the head of left partial region 7 x 1 ½ bone deep. He further deposed that I also examined Bhauji on the same day and noticed one incise wound on back side 6 x 3 cm muscle deep, which was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. 7. Dr. He further deposed that I also examined Bhauji on the same day and noticed one incise wound on back side 6 x 3 cm muscle deep, which was caused by hard and sharp edged weapon. 7. Dr. Pankaj Dubey further deposed that on the same day I also examined Natthulal one of the appellant and noticed following injuries : (i) One contusion on the back 5 x2 cm. (ii) One Abrasion on forearms 4 x ½ x1/2 cm and patient was complained pain in chest. Injuries were simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt object. 8. Witnesses deposed that appellant had caused injuries by Axe. From possession of the appellants axes were seized. This fact has also been proved that one of the appellant Natthulal also received injuries in the same incident. trial Court considered aforesaid fact in paras 26 and 27 of the judgment. Trial Court further observed that prosecution suppressed the fact that one of the appellant Natthulal received number of injuires. Hence, it could not be established that whether appellants were aggressor or the complainant was aggressor. trial Court relied on the judgment of apex Court in the matter of Lakshmi Singh v.State of Bihar, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 , in regard to non-explanation of injuries suffered by the accused persons in the same incident by the prosecution and held that prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, it may be possible that complainant may be aggressor. The apex Court has held as under : “This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue: and (2) that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The High Court in the pre-sent case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. The High Court in the pre-sent case has not correctly applied the principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid down. In Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1971 decided on April 25, 1975 : which was also a murder case, this Court, while following an earlier case, observed as follows: In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima Criminal Appeal No 67 of 1971 decided on March 19, 1975) one of us (Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows: In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow: (1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence. (2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all. The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case.” 9. Aforesaid principle of law has been followed by the apex Court in the matter of Bhagwan Sahai v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2016)13 SCC 171. 10. The apex Court has further held in the matter of V. Sejappa v. State reported in (2016)12 SCC 150 , in regard to principle of law if the appeal is against acquittal : In Muralidhar alias Gidda and anr. v. State of Karnataka [ (2014)5 SCC 730 ], this Court noted the principles which are required to be followed by the appellate Court in case of appeal against order of acquittal and in paragraph (12) held as under : "12. v. State of Karnataka [ (2014)5 SCC 730 ], this Court noted the principles which are required to be followed by the appellate Court in case of appeal against order of acquittal and in paragraph (12) held as under : "12. The approach of the appellate Court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu [ AIR 1954 SC 1 ], Madan Mohan Singh [ AIR 1954 SC 637 ], Atley [ AIR 1955 SC 807 ], Aher Raja Khima [ AIR 1956 SC 217 ], Balbir Singh [ AIR 1957 SC 216 ], M.G. Agarwal [ AIR 1963 SC 200 ], Noor Khan [ AIR 1964 SC 286 ], Khedu Mohton [ (1970) 2 SCC 450 ], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade [ (1973)2 SCC 793 ], Lekha Yadav [ (1973)2 SCC 424 ], Khem Karan [ (1974)4 SCC 603 ], Bishan Singh [ (1974)3 SCC 288 ], Umedbhai Jadavbhai [ (1978)1 SCC 228 ], K. Gopal Reddy [ (1979)1 SCC 355 ], Tota Singh [ (1987)2 SCC 529 ], Ram Kumar [(1995) Supp 1 SCC 248], Madan Lal [ (1997)7 SCC 677 ], Sambasivan [ (1998)5 SCC 412 ], Bhagwan Singh [ (2002)4 SCC 85 ], Harijana Thirupala [ (2002)6 SCC 470 ], C. Antony [ (2003)1 SCC 1 ], K. Gopalakrishna [ (2005)9 SCC 291 ], Sanjay Thakran [ (2007)3 SCC 755 ] and Chandrappa [ (2007)4 SCC 415 ]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate Court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court; (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal; (iii) Though, the powers of the appellate Court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate Court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. It is so because the trial Court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. It is so because the trial Court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate Court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial Court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate Court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified; and (iv) Merely because the appellate Court on reappreciation 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. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate Court in the judgment of the trial Court." 11. In view of the aforesaid and the law laid down by the apex Court, no interference is called for against the impugned judgment. Appeal is dismissed.