JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present appeal is maintained by the appellantState of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of accused in a case under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 451 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, (H. P) dated 19. 12. 2005, in Criminal Case No. 6/2 of 2001/2003. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 31. 8. 2001, around 7:30 PM, in Village Gondpur, complainant Harjeet Singh (PW-1) was taking dinner in the courtyard of his house, his wife Ranjit Kaur (PW-2) was serving food and his daughter Rajinder Kaur (PW-3) was also present there. Accused persons armed with sticks and accused Surender Singh, armed with ''balm'' (a stick having pointed iron edge) came on the spot and started assaulting the complainant (PW-1) with sticks. When, wife and daughter of the complainant (PW-1) tried to rescue him, they were also assaulted and a ''balm'' blow was given to Rajinder Kaur (PW-3), who fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot and the alleged occurrence was witnessed by one Gurmel Singh, resident of Nariwala and others. The complainant alongwith his wife narrated the whole incident to the police, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged. Statement of witnesses were recorded and site plan was prepared. Thereafter, codal formalities were completed and challan was put up in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses. Statement of accused persons were recorded, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, but the learned Court below on the basis of surmises and conjectures has acquitted the accused and the present is a fit case, where the accused is liable to be convicted after setting aside the judgment of acquittal. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the learned trial Court has taken into consideration all the material, which has come on record, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, so the judgment of learned trial Court needs no interference. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the accused, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 7. Complainant Harjeet Singh, (PW-1) while appearing in the witness box deposed that on 31. 10. 2001, around 7:00 PM, when he had returned back to his house after performing his duty, he found his wife and accused Prem Kaur, having discussion and pacified them. Thereafter, he started taking dinner and accused Sewa Singh, Rajinder Singh, Raghubir, Surinder, Prem Kaur, Dharambir and Data Ram, came in his courtyard and all of them were armed with sticks. Accused Surender Singh, was carrying a ''balm'' in his hand and started assaulting him and his family members. He has further deposed that the injuries were caused to his daughter, who became unconscious and all accused persons ran away from the spot. Rajinder Kaur (PW-3), who is also an injured has deposed that all accused persons entered in their courtyard and assaulted her and her parents. She deposed that the injuries were suffered by her and her parents. ASI Laiq Ram, Investigating Officer (PW-5) has visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW5/A. He has stated about the recovery of sticks and ''balm'' vide memo Ex. PW1/B. Dr. K. L. Bhagat (PW-7), who medically examined the complainant and his family and has proved on record MLC Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/C. In his crossexamination, he has stated that these injuries were possible even by fall. The analyses of the prosecution witnesses shows that all three injured have deposed differently. In FIR Ex. PW1/A, it was got recorded by the complainant (PW-1) that when he reached home, he found his brother''s wife indulging in discussion with his wife and he pacified both of them. Complainant (PW-1) stated in the same manner, but the wife of the complainant has stated differently. She has deposed that Prem Kaur, started cutting vegetables in her garden. PW1/A, it was got recorded by the complainant (PW-1) that when he reached home, he found his brother''s wife indulging in discussion with his wife and he pacified both of them. Complainant (PW-1) stated in the same manner, but the wife of the complainant has stated differently. She has deposed that Prem Kaur, started cutting vegetables in her garden. She asked her not to do so, upon which, Prem Kaur went away from the spot. PW-3, Rajinder Kaur, has deposed that a discussion took place between her mother and Prem Kaur, and her father was away from the house at that time. She has deposed that when her father returned back and her mother was preparing food for him, accused persons armed with sticks and ''balm'' came on the spot and assaulted them. The complainant (PW-1) states that his wife and daughter were taking meals, when accused persons assaulted them. His wife differs from him by deposing that she was preparing meals in the house and her husband was taking meals. Rajinder Kaur (PW-3) deposed in her cross-examination that she was in her own room at that time. Now, as far as the weapon of offence is concerned, complainant (PW-1) in his crossexamination states that accused Rajinder and Sewa Singh, were carrying sticks and accused Surender Singh, was carrying a ''balm'' in his hand. Thus, as per him, only two sticks were used in the commission of alleged offence, whereas Ranjeet Kaur (PW-2) states that all accused persons were carrying sticks except accused Surender Singh. Same is the statement of Rajinder Kaur (PW-3), why this contradiction has appeared is not clear at all. If all the persons were carrying sticks, why police was able to recover four sticks only and if, only two persons were carrying sticks, why four sticks were recovered. Investigating Officer, vide his memo Ex. PW1/A, recovered only four sticks. No explanation has come forth, why the remaining sticks were not recovered. As far as the use of sticks is concerned, complainant (PW-1) deposed that he was assaulted by Sewa Singh and Rajinder, his wife was assaulted by Raghubeer Singh and his daughter was assaulted by Shalender. Same is the statement made by his wife, whereas Rajinder Kaur (PW-3) deposed that all accused persons were giving sticks blows. All these facts clearly show that a case based on imagination is being built by the injured. Same is the statement made by his wife, whereas Rajinder Kaur (PW-3) deposed that all accused persons were giving sticks blows. All these facts clearly show that a case based on imagination is being built by the injured. Not only this, the witnesses have further differed from each other regarding the manner, in which the sticks were recovered by the police. Complainant (PW-1) in his cross examination deposed that the police has reached on the spot, on the next day and sticks were with ASI Laiq Ram (PW-5), whereas the prosecution case is to the effect that sticks were taken into possession by the police on 2. 9. 2001 i. e. day after the alleged occurrence. The independent witness to the alleged recovery Surjeet (PW-6) has not supported the prosecution case at all. The evidence regarding recovery of sticks from the accused persons is shrouded in grave suspicion. Gurmail Singh, has witnessed the alleged occurrence, but he was not examined by the prosecution. Dhan Kaur (PW-4) has not supported the prosecution case. The weapon of offence were not shown to Dr. K. L. Bhagat (PW-7), when his opinion was taken, so this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 8. 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/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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, reappreciate 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. 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. " 11. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. There is no illegality and infirmity in the findings, so recorded by the learned trial Court. 12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.