JUDGMENT P. N. Deshmukh, J. - This appeal is preferred by State of Maharashtra against judgment dated 10/4/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.215/2007 whereby respondent nos.1 to 9 came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Trial against respondent nos.3 and 4 is abated since died pending trial. 2. By order dated 7/3/2013 this Court granted leave to file appeal against original accused nos.1, 2 and 9 only, which order has reached its finality as not challenged before Hon''ble Apex Court. 3. In brief, it is the case of prosecution that P.W.7 Parvin Bano, wife of deceased Sk. Salim, lodged report on 20/6/2007 alleging that on that day around 5 p.m. her husband was taken out from house by accused no.1 Sk. Hasan and deceased accused no.3 Sk. Arif. However, he did not return back till 9 p.m. Therefore, she informed her nephew Sk. Mehbub to enquire about him, upon which she was informed that her husband was sitting along with 2-3 persons in a restaurant and would return in 15-20 minutes. She further alleged that within half an hour thereafter she learnt that accused nos.1 and 3 stabbed her husband in front of restaurant and, therefore, he was admitted in Irwin Hospital, Amravati where she visited along with her relatives at 9.30 p.m. and found her husband under medical treatment, who succumbed to his injuries within half an hour. 4. According to the case of prosecution, before lodging of report by P.W.7 Parvin Bano, while P.W.9 Dhakare was on duty at Gadgenagar Police Station, he received telephonic information from unknown person about some person lying in an injured condition near Prince Bar in Rampuri Camp area. Accordingly, he took entry in station diary and visited the spot and having found one person lying there, lifted him and got him admitted in Irwin Hospital. He then drew spot panchanama and came to Police Station where P.W.7 Parvin Bano was present and lodged report (Exh. 131), upon which he registered Crime No. 264/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and further investigated the same. During the course of it, he effected arrest of accused no.2 Sk. Aslam vide arrest panchanama (Exh.140) and drew inquest panchanama in the Hospital. 131), upon which he registered Crime No. 264/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and further investigated the same. During the course of it, he effected arrest of accused no.2 Sk. Aslam vide arrest panchanama (Exh.140) and drew inquest panchanama in the Hospital. Further investigation was carried out by P.W.10 Rathod, P.I., who recorded statements of witnesses and memorandum statement of accused no.1 Sk. Hasan (Exh. 118). In pursuance to the said memorandum, accused no.1 Sk. Hasan discovered knife and clothes from his house as per Exh. 119. 5. By Exh. 137 clothes of deceased Sk. Salim were seized and letter was issued to Revenue Authority for drawing sketch of scene of offence. During the course of investigation, memorandum statement of deceased accused no.3 Sk. Arif was recorded as per Exh. 156. The seized muddemal articles were sent to Chemical Analyser under requisition memo (Exh. 158). On receipt of post mortem note, map of spot of incident and Chemical Analyser''s report, as involvement of all accused persons came to be found, charge-sheet was filed against them in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati. In the course of time, case to be committed for trial before learned Sessions Judge. Charge was framed against accused vide Exh. 67, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. The defence of accused is of total denial and false implication. 6. To establish the case, prosecution in all examined ten witnesses and commenced its evidence by examining P.W.1 Sayyed Shafi and P.W.2 Sk. Ansar, who have proved spot panchanama (Exh. 102), P.W.3 Imranulla on memorandum statement of accused no.1 Sk. Hasan (Exh. 118) and seizure panchanama of knife and his clothes (Exh. 119), P.W.4 Baskaram on circumstances, P.W.5 Ahamdkha, eye witness, P.W.6 Dr. Pravin Suryawanshi, who examined deceased Sk. Salim in General Hospital on his admission, P.W.7 Parvin Bano, complainant wife of deceased Sk. Salim, P.W.8 Dr. Kanchan Dhole, who performed post mortem and placed on record post mortem report (Exh. 134) and concluded its evidence on examining P.W.9 Dhakare and P.W.10 Rathod, both Investigating Officers. 7. Heard Shri Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant and Shri Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 9 and also scrutinised the evidence. 8. Prosecution has mainly relied upon evidence of P.W.7 Pravin Bano, complainant and P.W.5 Ahamdkha, eye witness. 134) and concluded its evidence on examining P.W.9 Dhakare and P.W.10 Rathod, both Investigating Officers. 7. Heard Shri Ashirgade, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for appellant and Shri Kasat, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 and 9 and also scrutinised the evidence. 8. Prosecution has mainly relied upon evidence of P.W.7 Pravin Bano, complainant and P.W.5 Ahamdkha, eye witness. Perusal of evidence of P.W.7 Pravin Bano would reveal that deceased Sk. Salim was her husband and on the day of incident, he had gone out of house in the company of deceased accused no.3 Arif. P.W.7 Pravin Bano claims to have thereafter witnessed accused no.1 Sk. Hasan and accused no.9 Shakir Hussain present at some distance from her house under one tree, who followed her husband and deceased accused no.3 Sk. Arif. She has further stated that in the meantime, accused no.2 Sk. Aslam arrived there and sat on the motor-cycle of accused no.1 Sk. Hasan. She has further deposed that since after sufficient time her husband did not return back to home, on her request, Sk. Mehbub (not examined) enquired and informed her that her husband was sitting in a Bar with four-five persons and would return back within 10-15 minutes, however, he did not return. She has further deposed that at about 8 p.m. she heard noise of someone uttering words "Hamane Sallu Ko Tapaka Diya, Aur Kitne Jan Hai Bahar Aao". According to P.W.7 Parvin Bano, this was uttered by accused no.1 Sk. Hasan, deceased accused no.3 Sk. Arif and deceased accused no.4 Sk. Sabir and shouting was coming from near the house of Hafijabee where accused no.1 Sk. Hasan was holding sword and, therefore, she went at the spot where one Hujjad and one Nasir were present along with 10-15 persons and all of them were assaulting husband of Hafijabee by entering into their house and thereafter she returned back to her house. She has further stated that one Samir Dishwala met her on the way and informed her that her husband was lying in a serious condition in the Hospital and, therefore, she visited Irwin Hospital. 9. Pausing here to consider above said evidence of complainant, we find that from her evidence, only material which could be considered in favour of prosecution is of deceased accused no.3 Sk. Arif accompanying deceased Sk. Salim from his house. 9. Pausing here to consider above said evidence of complainant, we find that from her evidence, only material which could be considered in favour of prosecution is of deceased accused no.3 Sk. Arif accompanying deceased Sk. Salim from his house. As evidence of P.W.7 Parvin Bano is too short to hold that from her house, she could see accused no.1 Sk. Hasan and accused no.9 Shakir Husain to be present below some tree outside her house, her evidence does not clarify as to from what distance she could see them present below some tree. Her evidence is also not clear on the aspect of arrival of accused no.2 Sk. Aslam near accused no.1 Sk. Hasan when she deposed that accused no.2 Sk. Aslam came in the meantime and sat on the motor-cycle of accused no.1 Sk. Hasan. Her evidence also is not clear if accused no.1 Sk. Hasan when was alleged to be seen by her under a tree was with his motor-cycle. As such, initial part of her deposition is not at all convincing to be acted upon. Rest of her evidence with reference to listening to some noise alleged to be in the voice of accused no.9 Shakir Husain that "Hamane Sallu Ko Tapaka Diya, Kitne Jan Hai Bahar Aao" is by itself not sufficient to be acted upon in the absence of investigation to that effect as no voice sample of accused no.9 Shakir Hussain was obtained nor there is anything to hold that from the voice of accused no.9 Shakir Hussain, he could be identified by complainant Parvin Bano as it is nowhere her case that she was acquainted to said accused even prior to incident and as such, could identify his voice. Moreover, said part of her evidence is not at all relevant as it refers to assault by accused no.9 Shakir Hussain along with deceased accused nos.3 and 4 and 10-15 persons upon husband of Hafijabee by entering their house. Above evidence as such does not corroborate the contents of her report (Exh. 131) as no such incident of assault in the house of Hafijabee is stated therein and what is stated in the report is that after her husband left house, within half an hour, she learnt that accused no.1 Sk. Hasan, deceased accused no.3 Sk. Above evidence as such does not corroborate the contents of her report (Exh. 131) as no such incident of assault in the house of Hafijabee is stated therein and what is stated in the report is that after her husband left house, within half an hour, she learnt that accused no.1 Sk. Hasan, deceased accused no.3 Sk. Arif and 1-2 persons assaulted him by knife in front of Bar, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and as such, was admitted in the Hospital. 10. Persual of evidence of complainant in fact reveals that since prior to incident, relations between accused no.1 Sk. Hasan and deceased Sk. Salim were cordial as her husband was manufacturing liquor and accused no.1 Sk. Hasan was dealing in ganja business, which relations, however, for some reason thereafter became strained and there used to be quarrel between them, which was thereafter compromised by intervention of others. Though complainant appears to be cross-examined at length, nothing material is elicited. However, evidence of this witness, even otherwise, is not convincing on the point of incident as from her evidence what has come on record is of her husband going out of house and having been assaulted in front of Bar. We find that her evidence about deceased accused no.3 Arif taking her deceased husband out of house and about accused nos.2 and 9 following them and accused no.2 Sk. Aslam joining accused no.1 Sk. Hasan on his motor-cycle, which, even otherwise, is not convincing is by way of omission, which omission has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer when he has admitted that no such fact was disclosed by Parvin Bano in her statement recorded by Police. In that view of the matter, her evidence does not substantiate the case of prosecution in any manner except for establishing fact of her husband having been injured in an assault and admitted in the Hospital. 11. Another evidence relied by prosecution is of P.W.5 Ahmadkha since he claimed to be an eye witness. Perusal of evidence of this witness would reveal that on 20/6/2007 at about 8.30 p.m. while he was proceeding in his auto-rickshaw with passengers from Rampuri Camp along with his friend Babul (not examined) he saw accused no.1 Sk. 11. Another evidence relied by prosecution is of P.W.5 Ahmadkha since he claimed to be an eye witness. Perusal of evidence of this witness would reveal that on 20/6/2007 at about 8.30 p.m. while he was proceeding in his auto-rickshaw with passengers from Rampuri Camp along with his friend Babul (not examined) he saw accused no.1 Sk. Hasan assaulting one person by knife in front of Prince Bar, four persons had caught hold of that person and other two persons were beating by kick and fist blows. He has also deposed that accused no.2 Sk. Aslam is also known as Langadya and person, who was assaulted was known as Salim. According to this witness, he happened to pass through the spot of incident and as such, prosecution has claimed him to be an independent witness Though said witness is an independent witness, for the reasons as aforesaid, his material evidence on the point of incident is by way of omission when he has deposed that though he has stated to Police in his statement that he had seen 5-6 persons assaulting one person and accused no.1 Sk. Hasan stabbing deceased Sk. Salim, who was caught hold by four persons and accused no.2 Sk. Aslam and accused no.9 Shakir Hussain were giving fist and kick blows and also claims to have stated to Police that he saw the incident by going near the spot, he is unable to assign any reason why said fact is not mentioned in his statement. The omissions are duly got proved by the defence from P.W.10 Rathod, Investigating Officer, who has admitted that P.W.5 Ahmadkha has not stated in his statement as aforesaid. 12. Above discussed are the only witnesses, who are mainly relied by prosecution. However, from their evidence, no involvement of either accused no.1, 2 and 9 against whom leave to file appeal is granted by this Court is established, P.W.3 Imranulla though has proved memorandum statement (Exh. 118) and recovery of knife and clothes of accused no.1 Sk.Hasan at his instance, this evidence by itself is too short to connect accused with the present crime. Similarly, defence has not disputed fact of homicidal death of Sk. Salim and, therefore, we do not find it useful to refer to the evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Pravin Suryawanshi, who had examined deceased Sk. Similarly, defence has not disputed fact of homicidal death of Sk. Salim and, therefore, we do not find it useful to refer to the evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Pravin Suryawanshi, who had examined deceased Sk. Salim on his admission in General Hospital and has certified about injuries sustained by him or P.W.8 Dr. Kanchan Dhole, who had performed post mortem and certified contused wounds sustained by deceased Sk. Salim to be ante mortem, which were cause of death of Sk. Salim. 13. In view of above discussed evidence and for the reasons, we find it useful to refer to the case of Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415 , in which while considering the appeal against acquittal, five principles are laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, which read thus : "(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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. 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. 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. Hence, even though we are of the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of the appellate Court are as wide as that of the trial Court and it can review, re-appreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on facts as well as on law, in the present case, the view taken by the trial Court for acquitting the accused was possible and plausible. 14. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.