JUDGMENT : Amit B. Borkar, J. 1. Through this appeal, preferred under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the State of Maharashtra impugned the judgment and order dated 05.09.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 69/2005, acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 2. In short, the prosecution case runs as under:- On 23.02.2005 at about 9’O Clock in the night Rajkumar came to his house for going out. His wife Manisha(PW4) and mother- Shobha (PW3) were in front of his house. Namdeo (accused no.1) was digging a hole in front of his house and Girish(accused nos.3) and Shamrao (accused no.4) were standing alongwith Namdeo(accused no.1). Rajkumar asked Namdeo(accused no.1) as to why he was digging a hole in the deep hours in the night, upon which Namdeo(accused no.1) questioned Rajkumar as to how he has the authority to ask and suddenly gave a blow of crow-bar on the head of Rajkumar. Rajkumar fell down due to hitting of crow-bar. The informant-Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) tried to intervene but, both of them were beaten by the accused. Even after Rajkumar fell down on the ground, the accused continued to beat him mercilessly and Rajkumar died on the spot. The accused beat Rajkumar, using weapons like crow-bar, stick and stones, who succumbed to the injuries received by him because of a brutal assault. 3. Shobha(PW3) immediately went to the Police Outpost Rohane but, no one was present in the Outpost and therefore, Shobha (PW3) returned. At around 10.00 p.m., Police Van came at the spot of incident and took Shobha(PW3) and deceased-Rajkumar to the hospital at Pulgaon. Shobha(PW3) launched the First Information Report (FIR) at 0.45 a.m. on 24.02.2005. Dhanraj Ghondmode(PW7)- Investigating Officer (I.O.) started an investigation. The I.O. prepared Spot Panchnama and recorded statements of witnesses and arrested the accused. While the accused were in custody, recovery of incriminating articles including blood-stained clothes of the accused, weapons stained with blood was recovered. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the Trial Court, the appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused. 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner. In the Trial Court, the appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, in all the prosecution, examined seven witnesses. Three of them namely Shobha(PW3), Manisha (PW4) and Jagdish(PW5) were examined as eye-witnesses. In defence, no witness was examined. 6. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution; perusing the exhibits proved by the prosecution and the defence; and hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the Trial Judge acquitted all accused. Hence, the State has filed the present appeal. 7. We have heard Shri M. K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State of Maharashtra (appellant) and Shri R. M. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 . We have also perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses; the material exhibits tendered and proved by the prosecution; the statement of the respondent recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.; and the impugned Judgment. 8. Before analyzing the evidence available on record and going into legal aspects of the same, we feel it appropriate to first deal with contentions advanced by the learned Advocates on either side. 9. Shri M. K. Pathan, learned APP for the appellant strenuously urged that flimsy reasons for acquittal have been assigned by the Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. He firstly contended that the prosecution case is backed up by the evidence of three eye witnesses namely Shobha(PW3), Manisha(PW4) and Jagdish(PW5). He strenuously urged that the account given by Shobha(PW3), Manisha(PW4) and Jagdish(PW5) is not only corroborated by the nature of the injuries found on the body of deceased-Rajkumar by Dr. Nivas Kale (PW6) but, also by the circumstance of recovery of the blood of deceased on the clothes of accused nos.1 and 4. He further urged that testimony of the eye witnesses stated by Shobha (PW3), Manisha (PW4) and Jagdish (PW5) is consistent with each other. Each eye-witness stated about presence of other eye witness at the time of the incident. He further urged that testimony of the eye witnesses stated by Shobha (PW3), Manisha (PW4) and Jagdish (PW5) is consistent with each other. Each eye-witness stated about presence of other eye witness at the time of the incident. There should be no difficulty in accepting that Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) must have seen the incident, which took place adjacent to their house, when they were sitting in the front yard of their house and who are injured eye witnesses. He also urged that the manner and place of the assault pertaining to the deceased is also probablised by their evidence. He faulted disbelieving of the evidence of the three eye-witnesses by the Trial Court as being manifestly unreasonable. He urged that the view of the Trial Judge in rejecting their testimony cannot be defended as even a possible view. He urged that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the respondents in respect of all the charges and we should reverse the impugned judgment of acquittal. Shri M. K. Pathan, learned APP on behalf of the appellants strenuously urged that the view of acquittal taken by the Trial Court was not a possible view. In his contention, it was a wholly erroneous view; in fact a perverse view. He contended that this being so, the impugned order of acquittal cannot stand. He strenuously urged that there are some clinching circumstances, which are a guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case and weightage was not given to them by the Trial Judge. 10. Shri R. M. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4 submitted that all the eye-witnesses had no opportunity to see the incident as there was pitch darkness at the time of the incident. There was no electricity in the area where the alleged incident took place. He invited our attention to the Spot Panchnama and pointed out that there was blood in front of the house of deceased-Rajkumar, which falsifies testimonies of the eye-witnesses. He submitted that none of the eye-witnesses stated that deceased-Rajkumar went to the court-yard of accused no.1. He submitted that there is material inconsistency in the testimonies of all the eye-witnesses. He further submitted that Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) being mother and wife of deceased-Rajkumar respectively, are interested witnesses, and therefore their testimonies cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. He submitted that none of the eye-witnesses stated that deceased-Rajkumar went to the court-yard of accused no.1. He submitted that there is material inconsistency in the testimonies of all the eye-witnesses. He further submitted that Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) being mother and wife of deceased-Rajkumar respectively, are interested witnesses, and therefore their testimonies cannot be relied upon to convict the accused. The prosecution has failed to examine independent eyewitnesses and therefore, the view of the Trial Court was a possible view. Merely because another view is possible, it may not be the reason for interference in microscopic power of this Court in an appeal against the acquittal. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. At the very outset, we would like to point out that we are seized of the matter in an appeal against acquittal. It is well-settled that unless appreciation of evidence is clearly unreasonable or the impugned order of acquittal is vitiated by some illegality, this Court does not interfere in an appeal against acquittal. It is equally well-settled that if the view of acquittal is a possible view then this Court does not interfere even though it may feel that had it been the Trial Court, it may have taken a different view. We are fortified in our view by the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1970) 2 SCC 450 , Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar and (1987) 2 SCC 529 , Tota Singh Vs. State of Punjab. We also feel that in this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1995 (2) SCC 486 , State of Punjab Vs. Ajaib Singh, wherein in para 7, Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed thus:— “We agree that this court is not precluded or the court hearing the appeal against acquittal is not prevented from examining and reappreciating the evidence on record. But the duty of a court hearing the appeal against acquittal in the first instance is to satisfy itself if the view taken by acquitting court exercising appellate jurisdiction was possible view or not. And if the court comes to conclusion that it was not, it can on reappreciation of evidence reverse the order.” 12. But the duty of a court hearing the appeal against acquittal in the first instance is to satisfy itself if the view taken by acquitting court exercising appellate jurisdiction was possible view or not. And if the court comes to conclusion that it was not, it can on reappreciation of evidence reverse the order.” 12. The evidence on the basis of which prosecution presses for conviction of the respondents can be classified under two heads:— (a) Ocular evidence in the form testimony of Shobha(PW3), Manisha (PW 4) and Jagdish (PW 5); and (b) Recovery of incriminating clothes of the respondent nos.1 and 4 having human blood. 13. We are now proposing an examination of the statement of Shobha (PW3). Shobha(PW3) stated that when deceased-Rajkumar asked Namdeo(accused no.1) about digging of a hole in the night hours, Namdev(accused no.1) questioned deceased-Rajkumar as to who is Rajkumar to ask this thing to him and Namdeo(accused no. 1) gave a blow of crow-bar on the head of Rajkumar. Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) went there for separating them. Then, Girish (accused no. 3) gave a blow of stick to deceased-Rajkumar. Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) asked them why they are beating Rajkumar in the night hours and what offence is committed by him. Then Shyamrao (accused no. 4) stated that “ ekjk lkY;kyk [kwi ektwu xsyk ”. When Shobha(PW3) went to separate Rajkumar from the accused, (accused no. 1) gave a blow of crow-bar on her forehead and Shobha(PW3) started bleeding from her forehead. Rajkumar fell on the ground but, the accused continued assault by using crow-bar, stick and stones. Shobha(PW3) then started going towards Police Station. In the crossexamination of Shobha(PW3), she stated that her house is situated in a slum area and there is no electric supply in her house. She also admitted that there was darkness at the place of incident. She mentioned in her cross-examination that the incident was seen by her, Manisha(PW4) and Jagdish(PW5). 14. Manisha (PW4) also stated a similar manner of assault as stated by Shobha(PW3). Manisha(PW4) stated that she alongwith Shobha(PW3) went at the spot of the incident. Girish(Accused no. 3) gave a blow of crow bar to Rajkumar. Shamrao (Accused No. 4)gave a blow of stick and Malu (Accused No. 2) pulled his hair and slapped him.Namdeo gave blow of crow bar. Her Mother in law (PW3)went to police outpost to launch FIR. Manisha(PW4) stated that she alongwith Shobha(PW3) went at the spot of the incident. Girish(Accused no. 3) gave a blow of crow bar to Rajkumar. Shamrao (Accused No. 4)gave a blow of stick and Malu (Accused No. 2) pulled his hair and slapped him.Namdeo gave blow of crow bar. Her Mother in law (PW3)went to police outpost to launch FIR. Namdeo brought spear from the house and gave a blow thereof on the abdomen of Rajkumar. When Manisha tried to intervene Namdeo gave a blow of spear on the wrist of her left hand. Manisha (PW4) stated that Malu Uike(accused no. 2) and Namdev (accused no. 1) pelted big stones on the person of deceased- Rajkumar. She also stated that at the time of the incident, she alongwith Shobha(PW3) and Jagdish(PW5) were present. In the cross-examination of Manisha(PW4) nothing useful is extracted by the defence. 15. We have gone through the evidence of Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) with extreme caution because they are the mother and wife of deceased-Rajkumar and therefore, are interested/related witnesses. We have no reservations in observing that their evidence inspires implicit confidence. 16. Let us now consider the law on the evidentiary value of a related witness. Way-back in 1953, commenting on the aspect, Justice Vivian Bose in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364 observed as under:- “25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59. We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel”. 26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. 26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person…….” 17. In this context, it was observed by Justice H.R. Khanna in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Samman Dass, (1972) 3 SCC 201 . “23………………….It is well known that the close relatives of a murdered person are most reluctant to spare the real assailant and falsely involve another person in place of the assailant……………….” 18. Again in a recent decision of Supreme Court ,it was observed by Justice N. V. Ramana in Khurshid Ahmed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2018) 7 SCC 429 on the issue of evidence of a related witness:- “31. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused (See Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana)” 19. The above precedents make it amply clear that the testimony of the related witness, if found to be truthful, can be the basis of conviction and we have every reason to believe that Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) were present at the spot and identified the accused, with crow-bar in the hand of Namdeo(accused no.1) and Girish(accused no.3), and stick in the hand of Shamrao(accused no 4). Malu(accused no.2) pelted big stones on Rajkumar. Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) being injured eye witnesses give credence to the story of prosecution. 20. Jagdish(PW5), who is an independent witness stated manner of assault on deceased-Rajkumar in a similar manner as stated by Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4). Jagdish(PW5) stated that during the assault when Shobha(PW3) and Manisha (PW4) went to separate Rajkumar during the assault, accused persons beat Shobha(PW3) and Manisha (PW4). He stated that Malu (accused no.2) and Namdeo (accused no.1) pelted stone on the person of deceased-Rajkumar. Jagdish(PW5) acted as panch witness on the panchnama of recovery of weapons. He stated that Police seized weapons and sealed it and prepared a seizure memo. He stated that Malu (accused no.2) and Namdeo (accused no.1) pelted stone on the person of deceased-Rajkumar. Jagdish(PW5) acted as panch witness on the panchnama of recovery of weapons. He stated that Police seized weapons and sealed it and prepared a seizure memo. In the cross-examination, he denied that he was sitting in the kitchen of the house of Atul(PW1) at the time of the incident. We find that testimony of Jagdish(PW5) is consistent with testimonies of Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4), regarding the manner of assault, the role of each accused and presence of all the eye-witnesses during the assault. We have no reservations in observing that on very flimsy grounds, the Trial Judge has rejected the evidence of the eye witnesses Shobha (PW3), Manisha(PW4) and Jagdish (PW5) which is corroborated by the medical evidence . 21. The autopsy of the corpse of Rajkumar was conducted on 24.02.2005 by Dr. Kale(PW6). Dr. Kale(PW6) found that in all, deceased-Rajkumar suffered eight ante-mortem injuries, which are as follows:- (i) CLW six by 3x3x2 cm. over left eye brow, which is transverse. (ii) CLW 3x3x2 cm. over nasion, it was transveresed. (iii) CLW four by 4x2x1 cm. over left zygoma which is vertical. (iv) CLW 5x1x1 cm. over right zygoma, vertically oblique medially. (v) CLW 3x1x1 cm. over left side body of mandible. (vi) CLW 2x2x1 cm. over chin transversed. (vii) CLW 5x2x1 cm. over left temporal region of scalp anterior posteriorly. (viii) Incised wound 4x4x2 cm. in left groin oblique direction laterally ruptured major vessel seen. Other injury discovered in the external examination:- (i) Fracture frontal bone of skull. (ii) Fracture zygomatic bone left side. (iii) Fracture mandible left side. (iv) Fracture nessel bone. (v) Fracture maddole alveolar margin with teet on left half. On internal examination, the following injuries were found:- (i) Skull:- Fracture extending from left side of frontal bone involving temporal parietal and occiptal region bone. (ii) Fracture of sphenoidal bone greater and lessor uring. (iii) Brain :- Menigess are ruptured in anterior fossa of skull covering of frontal lobe 3x2 cm. in dimension of left side. 22. In the opinion of Dr. Kale(PW6), Rajkumar died on account of poly trauma involving head injury with a severe blood clot. Dr. Kale(PW6) stated in the court, the injuries which are mentioned in column nos. (iii) Brain :- Menigess are ruptured in anterior fossa of skull covering of frontal lobe 3x2 cm. in dimension of left side. 22. In the opinion of Dr. Kale(PW6), Rajkumar died on account of poly trauma involving head injury with a severe blood clot. Dr. Kale(PW6) stated in the court, the injuries which are mentioned in column nos. 17 and 19 of the post-mortem report are capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature. He stated that injuries described by him are capable of being caused by the weapons recovered i.e.. blade of spear, stick and crow bar (iorn rod). We see no reason to reject this evidence of Dr. Kale(PW6). 23. The manner of the assault, which is contained in the FIR, lodged by Shobha(PW3), and statement of Manisha(PW4), and Jagdish(PW5), in the Trial Court is corroborated by the medical evidence. In this connection, it would be pertinent to refer to the FIR, which was lodged within four hours of the incident, and wherein, there is a categorical averment that Namdeo(accused no.1) assaulted Rajkumar by the crow-bar and accused nos. 2 to 4 assaulted Rajkumar with crow-bar and stick. This is corroborated by the medical examination report of the deceased showing ante-mortem injuries nos. 1 to 8 suffered by the deceased. As mentioned above, the manner of assault contained in the FIR, has also been deposed to by these three eye-witnesses in their deposition in the Trial Court. 24. Assurance is lent to the claim of these witnesses by the circumstance, that FIR of the incident was lodged very promptly. As mentioned earlier, the incident is alleged to have taken place on 23.2.2005, at 9.00 p.m. and the FIR, wherein the respondents are named was lodged within four hours i.e. at 00.45 a.m. on 25.2.2005. As mentioned earlier, in the said FIR, all the essential features of the prosecution case, are mentioned. From the evidence of the informant, it appears that she went to Police Outpost of Rohana, but no one was present there therefore, she returned back to her house. Thereafter, Police Van came. Police van took her and Rajkumar to the hospital at Pulgoan. Then the informant Shobha(PW3), proceeded to Police Station, Pulgoan and lodged an FIR. The distance between the spot of incident and Police Station is 17 kilometers. Therefore, the FIR in the instant case is certainly a prompt one. Thereafter, Police Van came. Police van took her and Rajkumar to the hospital at Pulgoan. Then the informant Shobha(PW3), proceeded to Police Station, Pulgoan and lodged an FIR. The distance between the spot of incident and Police Station is 17 kilometers. Therefore, the FIR in the instant case is certainly a prompt one. In our view, this prompt FIR goes a long way in establishing the truthfulness of the prosecution case. 25. Criminal Courts attach great importance to the lodging of a prompt FIR. The same, substantially eliminates the possibility of embellishments and concoction in the prosecution case. In our view, the circumstance that within four hours of the incident that too during night, the names of the respondent nos. 1 to 4 coupled with their specific overt acts corroborated by the medical evidence, saw the light of the day in the FIR, is a circumstance which implicitly shows that all three the eye- witnesses saw the incident. 26. Assurance is also lent to the ocular account by the circumstance that on the place of the incident, the I.O.- Ghondmode found blood-stained earth. The said earth was sent to the Chemical Analyst, who found human blood mixed with the earth. This establishes that place of the incident deposed to by the three eyewitnesses was actually the place, where the deceased Rajkumar was assaulted. 27. For the said reasons, in our view, the Trial Judge acted in a manifestly unreasonable manner in disbelieving the involvement of the respondents, in the instant crime. On scrutiny of the testimonies of eye-witnesses, we are satisfied that all the accused acted in furtherance of their common intention and because of the merciless beating of deceased-Rajkumar by dangerous and deadly weapons like crow-bar, stick, spear and stone, the deceased succumbed to his injuries. The intensity of the attack was such that even after deceased-Rajkumar fell down because of the first blow of crow-bar on his head by Namdeo (accused no.1), all the accused continued beating him mercilessly. When his mother-Shobha(PW3) and wife-Manisha(PW4) tried to separate and intervene during the incident, the accused beat Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) also. The eye-witnesses have deposed the exact sequence of the event which took place on the day of the incident and there is nothing to doubt about the trustworthiness of their testimonies. When his mother-Shobha(PW3) and wife-Manisha(PW4) tried to separate and intervene during the incident, the accused beat Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) also. The eye-witnesses have deposed the exact sequence of the event which took place on the day of the incident and there is nothing to doubt about the trustworthiness of their testimonies. We are of the view that the Trial Judge was not justified in acquitting the respondents under Section 302 of the IPC. In our view, the act of the said respondents, fell squarely within the ambit of Third Clause of Section 300 of the IPC, the breach of which is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Third Clause of Section 300 of the IPC, provides that culpable homicide is murder, “if the act is done, with intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.” The Supreme Court in the timehonoured decision, reported in AIR 1958 SC 465 , Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab, in para 12, has held that if the injury caused is the intended injury i.e. not accidentally caused and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, the case would fall under Third Clause of Section 300 of the IPC. The said decision of the Supreme Court was considered and followed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in (1995) 1 SCC 326 , State of Karnataka Vs. Vedanayagam. This is apparent from the observations contained in para 4 of the said Judgment. In the instant case, the evidence of all the eye-witnesses is that respondent nos. 1 to 4 intentionally inflicted blows on the head and abdomen of the deceased-Rajkumar with a crow-bar, stick and big stones. The medical evidence in the form of the statement of Dr. Kale (PW6) is that the injuries suffered by the deceased on his head, which are mentioned in column nos. 17 and 19 of post-mortem report were capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries described by him were capable of being caused by the weapons recovered i.e.. blade of spear, stick, iron rod and stone. We find the opinion of Dr. Kale(PW6) to be plausible because vital organ like head, is damaged. 28. The circumstance that the blood of the deceased, on the clothes of the respondent nos. Injuries described by him were capable of being caused by the weapons recovered i.e.. blade of spear, stick, iron rod and stone. We find the opinion of Dr. Kale(PW6) to be plausible because vital organ like head, is damaged. 28. The circumstance that the blood of the deceased, on the clothes of the respondent nos. 1 and 4 seized by the prosecution, was found by the Chemical Analyst also goes against the respondent nos. 1 and 4. We may rely on para 10 of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1991) 3 SCC 627 , Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of M.P., wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court have held that the finding of human blood on clothes of accused is a material circumstance which goes against accused. 29. The first reason for the acquittal of the respondents given by the Trial Judge is that the eye-witnesses could not have seen the incident due to darkness. In para 12 of the impugned judgment, the Trial Judge has held that there was complete darkness. We do not agree with the finding of the Trial Judge. The evidence of Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) show that they were in the frontyard of adjoining house when the incident took place. Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) were trying to separate deceased Rajkumar from accused during the assault. The Trial Court was completely oblivious to the fact that the evidence of Shobha(PW3), Manisha(PW4) and Jagdish(PW5) show that the respondents were known to them since prior to the incident, being their neighbours. It is common knowledge that known people can be recognized even in the absence of light on account of their gait, timbre of voice etc. and if an authority is needed for this proposition then we would like to refer to the para 4 of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 712 , Kirpal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. In the said para the Supreme Court has held that known people can be recognised by their gait, timbre of voice etc. Even otherwise, the material on the record does not show that there was complete darkness of such nature that, it was impossible for the witnesses to see the faces and figures of persons/accused. 30. In the said para the Supreme Court has held that known people can be recognised by their gait, timbre of voice etc. Even otherwise, the material on the record does not show that there was complete darkness of such nature that, it was impossible for the witnesses to see the faces and figures of persons/accused. 30. We may straight away mention that we cannot concur with the Trial Judge in his view that since there were some contradictions in the testimony of all the eye-witnesses, they erode their credibility. In this connection, we are inclined to accept the deposition of the eyewitnesses in the Trial Court as they contain an elaborate account of the incident. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1980 Supp SCC 157, Matadin Vs. State of U.P., wherein in para 3, Their Lordships observed thus:— “The learned Sessions Judge, had rejected the evidence of the eyewitnesses on wrong, unconvincing and unsound reasons. The Sessions Judge appears to have been swayed by some insignificant omissions made by some of the witnesses in their statement before the police and on the basis of these omissions dubbed the witnesses as liars. The Sessions Judge did not realise that the statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take the place of evidence in the Court. Where the omissions are vital, they merit consideration but, mere small omissions will not justify a finding by a court that the witnesses concerned are self-contained liars.” 31. In this context, it was observed by Justice N V Ramana in a recent judgment in the case of Khurshid Ahmed Vs. State of J&K, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 429 on page 441 as under:- “35. When analysing the evidence available on record, the court should not adopt hyper technical approach but should look at the broader probabilities of the case. Basing on the minor contradictions, the court should not reject the evidence in its entirety. Sometimes, even in the evidence of truthful witness, there may ap- pear certain contradictions basing on their capacity to remember and reproduce the minute details. Particularly in the criminal cases, from the date of incident till the day they give evidence in the court, there may be gap of years. Sometimes, even in the evidence of truthful witness, there may ap- pear certain contradictions basing on their capacity to remember and reproduce the minute details. Particularly in the criminal cases, from the date of incident till the day they give evidence in the court, there may be gap of years. Hence, the courts have to take all these aspects into consideration and weigh the evidence. The discrepancies and contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter, credence shall not be given to them. In any event, the paramount consideration of the court must be to do substantial justice. We feel that the trial court has adopted a hyper technical approach which resulted in the acquittal of the accused.” 32. The third reason which weighed with Trial Court to acquit all the accused was a failure on the part of the prosecution to explain the blood found inside the court-yard of the complainant, particularly when as per the case of prosecution entire incident took place in front of the house of the accused no.1. On scrutiny of testimonies and Spot Panchnama, it appears that the pool of blood seen accumulated on the ground at the spot of occurrence and stains of blood were found on the ground, scattered in spots from the place of Atul(PW1) upto the courtyard. From the said recital in the Spot Panchnama, it is clear that actual incident took place in front of the house of accused no.1 and only spots of blood were seen up to the house of Atul(PW1). Therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in granting benefit of doubt to the accused on the ground that the blood was seen in front of the house of the complainant. 33. The fourth reason for acquittal of respondents is that Shobha(PW3), and Manisha(PW4), in their examination-in-chief have not acknowledged presence of Jagdish(PW5) at the time of the incident. Having scrutinized the evidence of Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) we find that the said observation is factually incorrect. Manisha(PW4) in her examination-in-chief on page 59 of the paper book has stated as under:- “I kept Jagdish Chahade at that place and went towards mother in law.” Manisha(PW4) stated above sentence while narrating the incident of assault on Rajkumar. She stated in cross-examination at page 61 of the paper book that Jagdish(PW5) tried to separate accused persons. Manisha(PW4) in her examination-in-chief on page 59 of the paper book has stated as under:- “I kept Jagdish Chahade at that place and went towards mother in law.” Manisha(PW4) stated above sentence while narrating the incident of assault on Rajkumar. She stated in cross-examination at page 61 of the paper book that Jagdish(PW5) tried to separate accused persons. These statements show that Trial Court has recorded said finding contrary to record. 34. The fifth reason for acquitting Respondents is that Jagdish(PW5) stated that incident of assault lasted only for two minutes but, Shobha(PW3) and Manisha(PW4) stated that incident of assault lasted for one hour. It appears that the Trial Court has made said observation considering stray sentence in the cross- examination out of context of entire testimonies of eye witnesses. Shobha(PW3) stated that the incident started at 9.oo p.m. and during the incident she went to police outpost at Rohana, but she returned back as no one was present in the police outpost, thereafter at 10.00 p.m. police van came at the spot of incident and took Shobha(PW3) and deceased Rajkumar to the hospital. In the above context Shobha(PW3) stated that incident lasted for one hour. She has not stated that assault continued for one hour. Manisha(PW4)stated that incident took time of one hour. She has stated in her cross-examination that during this time they shouted but nobody came at the spot. She has not stated that assault continued for one hour. There is no suggestion given by defence about exact duration of assault on Rajkumar. Therefore, fifth reason for acquittal is based on misconstruction of evidence of eye witnesses. 35. After the utmost circumspection, we have reached the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond all shadow of doubt, the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 324 of the IPC by the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 36. We make no bones in observing that in reaching the said conclusion, we have borne in mind the time-honoured principles which this Court keeps in mind while interfering in an appeal against acquittal, namely that the interference should only be made if either the assessment of the evidence by the acquitting Court is grossly unreasonable or the impugned order of acquittal suffers from any manifest illegality which has occasioned in the failure of justice. 37. 37. We have kept in mind the golden rule that if two views are equally reasonable; one of acquittal and one of conviction then, the mere circumstance that this Court is inclined to take the latter view would be no ground to reverse an order of acquittal. 38. This leaves us with only one question, namely the sentence to be awarded to the respondent nos. 1 to 4. We heard learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4 on the point of the sentence. He submitted that considering the young age and the fact that they are not involved in any other crime, the lenient view may be taken. We have reflected over the said question of sentence. Considering the manner of assault committed on deceased-Rajkumar, we are of the opinion that this is not the rarest of the rare case to impose a death sentence. Bearing this in mind as also the fact that nearly 15 years have elapsed, since the incident took place and there is nothing to indicate that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 have any adverse antecedents, in our view, the ends of justice would be satisfied if they are sentenced to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER (i) The judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, Wardha acquitting the respondents-accused of the charges of committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. (ii) It is held that respondent no. 1-Namdeo Haribhau Dayare, respondent no. 2-Sau. Malu Dyaneshwar Uike, respondent no. 3-Girish Uttamrao Gadade and respondent no. 4-Shamrao Daduji Gondane are found guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting respondent-accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. (iii) It is held that respondent no. 1-Namdeo Haribhau Dayare, respondent no. 2-Sau. Malu Dyaneshwar Uike, respondent no. 3-Girish Uttamrao Gadade and respondent no. 4-Shamrao Daduji Gondane are guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo sentence of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) each. (iii) It is held that respondent no. 1-Namdeo Haribhau Dayare, respondent no. 2-Sau. Malu Dyaneshwar Uike, respondent no. 3-Girish Uttamrao Gadade and respondent no. 4-Shamrao Daduji Gondane are guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo sentence of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting respondent-accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. (iv) Both the sentences shall run concurrently. (v) The entire amount of fine, which would be deposited by the respondents-accused should be given to complainant- Smt. Shobha Pralhad Payekar. The Police Inspector of Police Station, Pulgaon shall file compliance report of the amount of fine to be deposited by respondents-accused nos. 1 to 4 within three months. (vi) Muddemal properties be disposed of as per directions of the Sessions Judge, Wardha. (vii) The Criminal Appeal is allowed in the above terms. At this stage, learned Advocate for respondents-accused prayed for two months time to enable the respondents-accused to surrender. Considering the present situation of pandemic, the respondents-accused are granted time till 27th November, 2020 to surrender. The respondents-accused have furnished bail bonds, which shall continue till they surrender or they are arrested.