JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of accused in a case, under Sections 325, 323, 427, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the then Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, District Kangra, (H.P) dated 1.1.2007, in Criminal Case No. 86-II of 2002. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 26.10.2001, around 8:00 PM, complainant, Inder Pal (PW-1) alongwith his brothers, Ram Pal and Shiv Kumar (PW-2) were standing outside their shop at Dhameta market, in the meanwhile, accused persons came therein, in a car bearing No. HP-38-4142 and the same was parked in front of the shop of the complainant. Accused persons were under the influence of intoxication and started filthy language to the complainant-Inder Pal (PW-1). Accused, Dilbag Singh, pelted a stone to the shop of complainant, resulting thereby breaking a show piece glass. They also inflicting fist and leg blows to the complainant, on account of which, complainant party sustained injuries on their person. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses recorded and site plan was prepared. Thereafter, codal formalities were completed and challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine 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 judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Court below is without appreciating the evidence correctly. He has further argued that the learned Court below has ignored the evidence of PWs, 1, 2 and 9 and has acquitted the accused. 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. 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. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1, Inder Pal, he has deposed that accused persons came on the spot in a Maruti car bearing No.HP-38-4142 and they started inflicting blows to the complainant party. He also deposed that PW-3, Sanjeev Kumar and PW-5, Sardeel Singh, came on the spot and rescued them from the clutches of accused. He has further deposed that they informed the Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala, on the same night by 10:00 PM. He further stated that the police came to the spot and remained there till 1:00 AM. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is an old enmity between the complainant party and accused. PW-2, Shiv Kumar, deposed that he alongwith his brother Ram Pal, Inder Pal, was sitting inside the shop. He further stated that accused persons came on the spot and they started causing beatings to the complainant party. He further stated that the police came to the spot on the same day. In his cross-examination, he has stated that they went to the spot, on the next day of occurrence at 3:00 PM. He has also stated that there is an old enmity between the complainant party and accused. PW-3, Sanjeev Kumar, eye witness of the occurrence, has deposed that he noticed that some persons entered into an arena of arguments with the complainant party. He has further stated that no scuffle took place before him. PW-4, Milkhi Ram, is a witness of seizure memo. He has deposed that nothing had happened in front of him. PW-5, Sardool Singh, another eye witness of the case has deposed that he went to the spot after hearing a noise. He further stated that accused persons were causing beatings to the complainant. PW-4, Milkhi Ram, is a witness of seizure memo. He has deposed that nothing had happened in front of him. PW-5, Sardool Singh, another eye witness of the case has deposed that he went to the spot after hearing a noise. He further stated that accused persons were causing beatings to the complainant. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he narrated the incident to the police that the occurrence is of inside the shop. PW-6, Dr. Virender Gupta, has conducted the medical examination of PW-1, Inderpal and PW-2, Shiv Kumar and stated that the injury is possible by way of fall. PW-7, Sudershan Kumar, is a witness of seizure memo, Ex.PW7/A, by which Maruti Car bearing No. HP-54-8384, was taken into possession by the police. PW-9, Bahadur Singh, Investigating Officer, deposed that the place of occurrence is having populous vicinity. He has deposed that the stone and pieces of broken glass, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, were sealed in a parcel. 8. At this stage, it is worthwhile to mention here that PW-3, Sanjeev Kumar, who is eye witness, has not supported the prosecution case at all, as he was the key witness, as per the prosecution, but even after declaring him hostile, nothing favourable to the prosecution has come. He has frankly denied that any scuffle took place before him. At the same point of time, PW-5, Sardeel Singh, has stated that the occurrence occurred inside the shop, but the prosecution story is otherwise different. PW- 6, Dr. Virender Singh, has deposed that the injury on the person of PW-1, Inderpal and PW-2, Shiv Kumar, is possible by way of fall. In these circumstances, witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2, who are the interested witnesses and their testimonies cannot be taken into consideration, as they had admitted that there was any enmity inter se them and accused. So, the testimonies of PW-1, Inderpal and PW-2, Shiv Kumar, is considered viz-a-viz, statement of other witnesses and their testimonies does not inspire any confidence, as the independent witness has not supported the prosecution case. In the present case, it has also come on record that sister-in-law of one of the complainant is working as Staff Nurse and the medical was conducted thrice, this also create a suspicion in the prosecution story. At the same point of time, delay in lodging FIR, is fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case, it has also come on record that sister-in-law of one of the complainant is working as Staff Nurse and the medical was conducted thrice, this also create a suspicion in the prosecution story. At the same point of time, delay in lodging FIR, is fatal to the prosecution case. So, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 9. 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/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 10. 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. 11. 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, re-appreciate 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. 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.” 12. 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. 13. 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.