JUDGMENT : M.G. GIRATKAR, J. 1. The present revision is against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 14.06.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2015. Both the applicants/accused were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both were acquitted by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha in Regular Criminal Case No. 389 of 2012 vide judgment dated 11.02.2015. The prosecution has challenged the said judgment before the Sessions Court, Wardha. Learned Sessions Judge has set aside the judgment of JMFC and convicted both the applicants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Being aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed. 2. The case of the prosecution against both the applicants in short is as under: Complainant Ranjana Naresh Thote lodged an oral report at Police Station, Deoli alleging that on 11.06.2012 at about 09:00 p.m. her husband Naresh went outside. Accused persons abused to her husband. Accused Yogesh caught her husband and accused Dhanraj had beaten him on his head and back by means of wooden rod (ubhari). Her husband fell down. He had sustained head injury. He was taken to the hospital. Medical Officer gave him medical treatment. On the report of Ranjana, Crime No. 66 of 2012 was registered against both the applicants for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. Charge was framed by JMFC. In all, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Learned JMFC acquitted both the accused. But, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha allowed the appeal and convicted both the applicants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer RI for seven years. 3. Heard Shri R.M. Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. 4. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the power of appellate Court under Section 278 is very limited. 3. Heard Shri R.M. Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. 4. Shri Daga, learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the power of appellate Court under Section 278 is very limited. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 (11) SCC 334 and submitted that learned first appellate Court exceeded its power and wrongly convicted both the applicants. He has also pointed out the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Awadhesh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1988 (2) SCC 557 . 5. Shri Daga, learned Counsel has submitted that in fact prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, material omissions and contradictions brought on record create doubts about the incident. He has pointed out the evidence of PW-2 and 3 and submitted that there is material contradiction between the evidence of both husband and wife. Learned JMFC has rightly considered the material omissions and contradictions and acquitted both the applicants. But, learned Additional Sessions Judge exceeded his power and wrongly convicted the applicants. 6. Though the punishment under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is up to the life imprisonment, it is triable by the JMFC and power of JMFC to convict the accused is not more than three years. But learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/applicants in the case which is triable by JMFC and sentenced up to seven years. 7. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into consideration material omissions and contradictions brought on record in the evidence of PW-2. Evidence of PW-2 and 3 clearly show that PW-2 was not present at the time of incident. She has stated before the Court that she saw the incident personally. Omission brought on record in her evidence that she has not stated before the police that her husband was demanding money to accused Dhanraj and there was some quarrel between them. She has admitted that her husband had gone out of the house at about 09:00 p.m. that time she was at her house. She has further admitted that the place of incident is not visible from her house. She has admitted that her husband had gone out of the house at about 09:00 p.m. that time she was at her house. She has further admitted that the place of incident is not visible from her house. She was also not in a position to hear the quarrel from the spot of incident from her house. Material omission is also brought on record in respect of incident itself. She has stated in her cross-examination that, she has stated before the police that her husband was demanding money to accused Dhanraj. That time accused Dhanraj caught hold her husband and accused Yogesh came with wooden stump and beat her husband on his head. These are the material omissions brought on record in her evidence by the defence. Those omissions are rightly considered by the JMFC, but learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly not considered the same. 8. It is brought on record in the evidence of PW-3 (injured Naresh) that when he was going, he was beaten from backside. He has not stated that how he had seen both the accused while beating him. He has made much more improvement in his evidence. He has stated that accused persons beat him on head and on hand etc. But, medical evidence proved by Dr. Nitinkumar Nimodiya (PW-8) shows that he found only one injury. Therefore, it is clear that PW3 has improved much more in his evidence. His evidence is not corroborated by medical evidence. 9. PW-2 has stated that she saw the incident personally that accused No. 2 Dhanraj caught hold her husband and accused No. 1 Yogesh beat her husband. But, her evidence in cross-examination shows that she was at home. She was not in a position to see the spot of incident from her house and hear the quarrel. Therefore, her evidence is not reliable. Learned JMFC has rightly observed that injured Naresh was servant of accused. He was demanding money and there was quarrel. It is also admitted by Naresh and his wife. PW-2 (wife of injured) namely Ranjana has stated in her evidence that accused No. 2 Dhanraj caught hold her husband and accused No. 1 Yogesh gave blow of wooden stump on the head of her husband. But, in her report (Exh.22), she has stated that accused Yogesh caught hold her husband and accused Dhanraj gave blow of wooden stump on the head of her husband. But, in her report (Exh.22), she has stated that accused Yogesh caught hold her husband and accused Dhanraj gave blow of wooden stump on the head of her husband. This material contradiction is rightly appreciated by the JMFC but wrongly not considered by the first appellate Court. 10. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed about the powers of appellate Court in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (cited supra), as under: “It is well settled that, if on appraisal of the evidence and on considering the relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial Court for acquitting the accused and the other for convicting the accused, in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial Court. Unless the conclusions of the trial Court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable and perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal.” 11. In the case of Awadhesh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (cited supra), Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed thus: “Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which the court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. While considering an appeal against acquittal the High Court must keep in mind these principles in appreciating the evidence of witnesses. If on appraisal of the evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances it is found that two views are possible, one as held by the trial court for acquitting the accused, and the other for convicting the accused in such a situation the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court. Unless the conclusions of the trial court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. Unless the conclusions of the trial court drawn on the evidence on record are found to be unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. The High Court has in the instant case made an attempt to explain away the infirmities in the testimony of eyewitnesses in setting aside the order of acquittal. The High Court has in our opinion disregarded the rule of judicial prudence in converting the order of acquittal to conviction.” 12. The first appellate Court ought to have seen the evidence on record. Though two view taken is possible, there is no necessity to take another view which is not taken by the trial Court. On the other hand, it appears that the first appellate Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha wrongly appreciated the evidence. The evidence of PW-2 shows that her husband was beaten by accused Yogesh and accused Dhanraj caught hold him, but by lodging report, she has stated that Yogesh caught hold her husband and accused Dhanraj beat her husband. The material contradictions are also brought on record in her evidence. Those are rightly considered by the JMFC. Learned appellate Court has wrongly not considered the same and convicted the accused. Appreciation of learned Additional Sessions Judge is nothing but wrong. 13. In that view of the matter, following order is passed. 14. Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 14.06.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha is hereby quashed and set aside. Judgment of trial Court is restored. Both the applicants/ accused are hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any paid, be refunded to the applicants. R and P be sent back.