JUDGMENT : M.G. Giratkar, J. 1. Appellant - State as well as the complainant Smt. Shobha widow of Dattatrya Giri, both have challenged the judgment of acquittal of all the respondents/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed in Sessions Trial No. 2/2002 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad. 2. The case of the prosecution against the respondents /accused in short is as under. (i) The complainant Shobha Giri lodged oral report at Police Station, Pophali. It is alleged in the report that on 20-9-2001 at about 8.30 p.m., her husband came back from the field. That time, quarrel was going on in between her father-in-law and brother-in-law on account of allotment of share in the partition of field property. At that time, father-in-law of accused no. 1 Manikpuri (accused no. 2) was telling Govindgir to get prepared the ornaments sold of his daughter Sagarbai. There was quarrel. Accused no. 1 Dnyaneshwar annoyed, went in the house and brought the weapon Jambiya (kind of dagger) and gave its blows to Govindgir. Govindgir shouted. Dattagir, husband of complainant went to rescue his father Govindgir. That time, accused no. 1 stabbed Dattagir. At that time, accused no. 2 was instigating to accused no. 1. Complainant and her mother-in-law shouted. They separated the quarrel. Then accused nos. 1 and 2 ran away from there. (ii) Due to injury, Dattagir became unconscious. Sudhakar gave information to Police Patil of the village. Police of Police Station, Pophali came with a jeep and they took injured to the Government Hospital, Umarkhed for treatment. Dattagir was declared dead. Condition of Govindgir was critical and, therefore, he was taken to Nanded Government Hospital for necessary treatment. Govindgir died in the hospital at Nanded. On the report of complainant, crime was registered against the accused. Investigating Officer completed investigation and filed chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Umarkhed who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial. (iii) Charge was framed against the accused. Same was readover and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined in all total 14 witnesses. (iv) Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (iii) Charge was framed against the accused. Same was readover and explained to the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined in all total 14 witnesses. (iv) Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After conclusion of trial, learned trial Court acquitted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N. R. Patil for the State/appellant and learned counsel Shri K. S. Narwade for the complainant. They submitted that evidence of P.W. 1 Shobha and her son P.W. 12 Rameshwar is sufficient to convict the accused. Learned trial Court wrongly not relied on their evidence. There is also dying declaration of Govindgiri. But it is also not relied by the trial Court. It is submitted by them that evidence of P.W. 1 is well corroborated by evidence of P.W. 12. It is also corroborated by dying declaration (Exhibit 50). 4. None appeared for the respondents/accused. 5. There is no dispute that Govindgiri and Dattagiri both died homicidal death. As per opinion of Medical Officer who conducted postmortem, both Govindgiri and Dattagiri were died due to stab injuries. Whether accused were the author of crime is to be scrutinized from the evidence. 6. Except evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 12, there is no other witnesses who supported the prosecution. P.W. 1 was present in the house. Quarrel was going on in the house of accused. Her husband went to the house of accused. Accused stabbed her husband and also her father-in-law. This particular evidence is not reliable. She has stated in her evidence that there was property dispute. But in fact, property was partitioned. Complainant along with her husband was residing separately. P.W. 12 was minor, appears to be tutored witness. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 12 rightly not relied by the trial Court. The recovery of weapon is doubtful because as per the recovery panchanama, weapons were seized on 24-9-2001 whereas the incident took place on 20-9-2001. Complainant P.W. 1 has stated in her evidence that in the night of incident itself, police called her to identify the knife. Accordingly, she identified the same. Therefore, it is clear that the weapon was already seized. Complainant P.W. 1 has stated in her evidence that in the night of incident itself, police called her to identify the knife. Accordingly, she identified the same. Therefore, it is clear that the weapon was already seized. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W. 1, both accused ran away after the incident whereas weapon was seized from the house of accused itself. 7. It is the defence of accused that there was quarrel between Govindgiri and Dattagiri. Both beat each other by weapon, therefore, both sustained injuries. Defence appears to be probable because eye witness Daudkhan Daulatkan Pathan (P.W. 4) has stated in his evidence that he was called for dinner by Babangir at his house. After the dinner, he, Babangir, his wife and brotherinlaw were talking with each other. There was quarrel between Govindgiri and Dattagiri on account of landed property. Both of them beat each other and both of them fell unconscious. Govindgiri and Dattagiri were not beaten by any other person. He has stated that Govindgiri was having knife. Dattagiri was demanding his share to Govindgiri and on that count, there was quarrel and both stabbed each other. 8. In view of the evidence of Daudkhan Pathan (P.W. 4), the probable defence appears to be proved by defence. Prosecution relied on the dying declaration of Govindgiri at Exhibit 50. He has stated that fatherinlaw of accused no. 1 was asking him as to why jewellery of daughter-in-law was sold and then dispute arose between him and accused no. 2. Accused no. 1 stabbed him and his son Dattagiri. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 1 not stated anything about the quarrel on account of jewellery but she has stated that there was quarrel on account of agriculture land. Moreover, admission of P.W. 1 shows that condition of Govindgiri was critical and, therefore, he was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Nanded. This itself shows that whether he was in a position to talk is doubtful. 9. Learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The view taken by the learned trial Court cannot be disturbed in appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Labh Singh and others Vs. This itself shows that whether he was in a position to talk is doubtful. 9. Learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The view taken by the learned trial Court cannot be disturbed in appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Labh Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1976) 1 SCC 181 observed as under : The powers of the High Court while hearing an appeal against an acquittal are as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction. It has full power to reappraise the entire evidence upon which the order of acquittal was based and to reach its own conclusion. But before reversing an order of acquittal it should endeavour to displace or dispel in a general or specific way the primary reasoning of the trial Court upon which the acquittal is founded, paying due regard and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses and the value of their evidence; (2) the initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by his acquittal at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. And if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting acquittal and the other indicating conviction, the High Court should not interfere merely because it feels, that it would, sitting as a trial Court, have taken the other view. Evidence of P.W. 1 is not reliable because there is material omissions and contradictions in her evidence. Her son P.W. 12 was minor at the time of incident and stated like as parrot before the Court. He was a tutored witness. Dying declaration relied by the prosecution does not inspire confidence of the Court. As per the evidence of P.W. 4 Daudkhan Pathan, there was quarrel between Dattagiri and Govindgiri. Both stabbed each other. The probable defence is established by the evidence of P.W. 4 Daudkhan Pathan. Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 10. In view of the above cited decision, the findings of the trial Court cannot be disturbed. Hence, we pass the following order. Both stabbed each other. The probable defence is established by the evidence of P.W. 4 Daudkhan Pathan. Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 10. In view of the above cited decision, the findings of the trial Court cannot be disturbed. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER (i) The appeal and criminal revision application are dismissed. (ii) R & P be sent back to the trial Court. (iii) Accused are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.