JUDGMENT : S. Vaidyanathan and N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Theni, made in S.C. No. 235/2011 dated 27.03.2017, acquitting respondents 2 to 4 (A-1 to A-3) from all charges. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the brother of A-1 one Arjunan was murdered in the year 1999 by the deceased and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 85/1999 for an offence under Section 302 IPC. After full-fledged trial, the deceased was convicted and sentenced in S.C. No. 556/1999 for an offence under Section 304(II) IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. He suffered the imprisonment and thereafter, came out of the jail. Therefore, there was a prior enmity between the deceased and A-1. Keeping this prior enmity in mind, A-1 is said to have conspired along with A-2 and A-3 to do away with the deceased. Pursuant to the conspiracy, on 07.02.2011, at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased was coming near Thevaram East Car Street, the accused persons came in a two wheeler and they had restrained the deceased and A-1 is said to have yelled saying that, "You are the one, who had killed my brother and you have also come out of the jail and you cannot escape from the consequences", saying so, he is said to have attacked the deceased with aruval (M.O.-5). When this was questioned by Navaneetha Krishnan @ Navaneethan (P.W.-22), A-2 is said to have threatened him by showing a knife. The deceased had died on the spot. 3. The brother of the deceased (P.W.-1) gave a complaint (Ex. P-10) to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-20), and he registered an FIR in Crime No. 28/2011 for an offence under Section 302 IPC (Ex. P.-9) on 07.02.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. The express FIR was sent through the Head Constable (P.W.-17) and he handed it over to the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. The investigation was taken over by the Inspector of Police (P.W.-21). He went to the scene of crime at about 5.15 p.m. and he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P.-1) and also the rough sketch (Ex. P.-11). He also conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased till 7.15 p.m. and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P.-12). He went to the scene of crime at about 5.15 p.m. and he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P.-1) and also the rough sketch (Ex. P.-11). He also conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased till 7.15 p.m. and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P.-12). He recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He had sent the dead body of the deceased through the Head Constable (P.W.-19) with a requisition for conducting a postmortem. The material objects that were found in the scene of occurrence were collected and sent to the Court with a requisition to send the same to the Forensic laboratory. 4. The Investigating Officer got the information regarding A-1 and he was arrested on 07.02.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. and he voluntarily confessed before the Investigating Officer. Based on the same, the weapon (M.O.-5) and other material objects were recovered in the presence of witnesses. A-1 was brought to the police station and thereafter was taken to the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. The FIR was also altered by adding the offence under Sections 120(B) and 302 r/w 34 IPC and this alteration report (Ex. P-14) was sent to the Court. 5. The Investigating Officer thereafter arrested the other two accused persons on 11.02.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. and recorded their confession statements in the presence of witnesses. All the material objects that were recovered were sent to the Court under Form 95. 6. The Investigating Officer proceeded to collect the postmortem Certificate (Ex. P-8) and the serological report (Ex. P.-17) and he also examined the concerned witnesses. After the completion of the investigation, he filed the final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur, on 18.05.2011 for offence under Sections 302, 120(B), 324 read with 511 IPC. 7. The case was committed to the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam and the same was taken on file in S.C. No. 235/2011, after the accused persons were furnished with a copy of the final report along with all the documents under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons as follows: S. No. Rank of the accused Offence for which charges are framed 1 A-1 120(B) IPC 2 A2 & A3 120(B) , 302 r/w 34 IPC 8. The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons as follows: S. No. Rank of the accused Offence for which charges are framed 1 A-1 120(B) IPC 2 A2 & A3 120(B) , 302 r/w 34 IPC 8. The prosecution examined P.W.-1 to P.W.-22 and marked Ex. P.-1 to Ex. P-17 and also exhibited M.O.-1 to M.O.-8. The incriminating materials that were collected during the course of trial were put to the accused, while questioning them under Section 313(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied the same as false. 9. The trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence, came to the categorical conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, proceeded to acquit the accused persons from all charges. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant (wife of the deceased) submitted that the Court below ought not to have rejected the entire evidence of P.W.-1, even though he turned hostile and the Court below ought to have relied upon the portion of the evidence of P.W.-1. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.-10 was an eyewitness, who has clearly spoken about the incident and the Court below could have proceeded further to convict the accused persons based on the evidence of P.W.-10. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of P.W.-10 has been corroborated by the evidence of the postmortem Doctor, who was examined as P.W.-18 and the injuries as found in the postmortem certificate, which was marked as Ex. P.-8. 11. The learned counsel submitted that P.W.-3, who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.-4, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, have clearly spoken about the motive behind the crime and the previous incident, where the brother of A-1 is said to have been killed by the deceased and this murder has been taken place only as a retaliation for the earlier incident. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 must be read along with the evidence of P.W.-10 and it is further corroborated by the evidence of the postmortem Doctor (P.W.-18) and the Court below went wrong in rejecting the entire case of the prosecution without considering the availability of this evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 must be read along with the evidence of P.W.-10 and it is further corroborated by the evidence of the postmortem Doctor (P.W.-18) and the Court below went wrong in rejecting the entire case of the prosecution without considering the availability of this evidence. The learned counsel concluded his argument by submitting that the incident in this case has taken place on 07.02.2011 at about 2.30 p.m. and the complaint was given before P.W.-20 at about 3.00 p.m. and it had reached the Court by 7.00 p.m. and there was absolutely no delay at any stage and therefore, there is no occasion for any deliberation and falsely roping in the accused persons in this case. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the trial Court requires interference. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3 submitted that the prosecution had examined P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-9, P.W.-10 and P.W.-22 as eyewitnesses in this case and except P.W.-10, all the other witnesses had turned hostile. The learned counsel submitted that the trial Court had given clear reasons as to why it is disbelieving the version of P.W.-10 and the finding given by the trial Court is supported by reasons. The learned counsel submitted that the accused persons cannot be convicted and punished in this case merely based on the motive that is sought to be established by the prosecution. The learned counsel submitted that the key witness in this case is P.W.-22, who is said to have gone with the deceased at the time of incident and he was also threatened by A-2, according to the case of the prosecution. However, this witness has clearly disowned the entire version and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Infact, the brother of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.-1, has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the finding given by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the innocence of the accused persons has been affirmed by the trial Court and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 13. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the finding given by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the innocence of the accused persons has been affirmed by the trial Court and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police supported the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Court below went wrong in acquitting the accused persons. 14. The case of the prosecution mainly hinges upon the evidence of the eyewitnesses in this case. P.W.-1, who is the brother of the deceased, had specifically stated in his evidence that there were four or five persons, who had attacked the deceased and they belong to Kerala and it is not the accused persons, who had committed the murder and he infact said this to the police, even at the time of giving the complaint and this witness has disowned, even the signature found in the complaint. This witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution. 15. The prosecution had also examined P.W.-2, P.W.-6 and P.W.-9 as eyewitnesses. None of these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and they were also treated as hostile. 16. The most important witness in this case is P.W.-22, namely, Navaneethakrishnan @ Navaneethan, who is said to have gone along with the deceased at the time of the incident. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and he states in his evidence that he came to know about the incident only from some other persons and he saw the deceased in a pool of blood. 17. The only witness, who has toed the line of the prosecution, is P.W.-10. This witness has spoken about the incident and he has also described the manner in which the entire incident had taken place. The Court below had rejected the evidence of this witness by giving cogent reasons. It will be relevant to extract the reasonings that was given by the trial Court for disbelieving P.W.-10: xxx 18. It is clear from the above finding that the trial Court has found that this witness had claimed that he lifted the dead body of the deceased, but, however, there were no bloodstains in his clothes. It will be relevant to extract the reasonings that was given by the trial Court for disbelieving P.W.-10: xxx 18. It is clear from the above finding that the trial Court has found that this witness had claimed that he lifted the dead body of the deceased, but, however, there were no bloodstains in his clothes. Similarly, this witness had stated that he was sitting along with the deceased person for nearly an hour near the scene of crime till the police came to the scene of crime. That apart, this witness has also stated that when the deceased fell down, he was also stabbed twice by A-2. This evidence given by P.W.-10 goes beyond the version of the prosecution with regard to the incident. Even in the postmortem certificate, no such stab injuries has been found. This has also been made clear by the postmortem Doctor, who was examined as P.W.-18. Therefore, the trial Court found that the evidence of P.W.-10 is not believable and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the said finding. 19. It is true that P.W.-3, who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.-4, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, have spoken about the previous enmity between the parties. However, it is not possible for this Court to reverse the finding of acquittal merely on the ground that there was motive behind the alleged crime. 20. Even insofar as the arrest and recovery of the accused persons is concerned, the trial Court had disbelieved the version given by the prosecution and had also given a very specific finding that the recovery has not been proved in this case. The relevant portion in the judgment is extracted hereunder: xxx 21. The above findings that have been rendered by the trial Court was only based on the evidence of the eyewitnesses and this Court cannot give a different finding, even if a different view is possible, since this Court, while considering the appeal against acquittal, cannot impose its view to the view that has been expressed by the trial Court, unless it is perverse. 22. A careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence that has been placed before this Court does not establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. 22. A careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence that has been placed before this Court does not establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. The trial Court has given cogent reasons and it has given categorical findings to the effect that the prosecution has not proved the incident and the so called recovery has also been disbelieved by the trial Court. 23. It is now a settled principle of law that this Court would not exercise its appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal unless the finding of the trial Court is wholly unreasonable or perverse and it is not based on evidence on record or it suffers from serious illegality. It is equally settled that if on the basis of the same evidence, two views are reasonably possible, this Court cannot impose its view upon the view that has been expressed by the trial Court favouring the accused persons. 24. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court in S.C. No. 235/2011 dated 27.03.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Theni is hereby affirmed and this criminal appeal is dismissed.