JUDGMENT 1. Vide this judgment above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of, as they have arisen out of common judgment/order dated 12.7.1985 passed by the trial court. 2. Prosecution story was set in motion on the basis of statement Exhibit-P/1 made by complainant before the police on 15.10.1979 at 10:15 AM. On the basis of statement Exhibit-P/1, a formal FIR Exhibit-P/57 bearing No. 80/1979 dated 15.10.1979 was registered at Police Station Khandar, Sawai Madhopur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 120-B, 325 and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Chhotu Lal was resident of Village Allapur, Tehsil Khandar, Sawai Madhopur. There was an enmity between his party and party of Ram Ratan. Some litigation was also pending between them. About a year back, Bhanwar Lal and Ram Ratan had contested co- operative society elections against each other. Complainant party had supported Bhanwar Lal and due to this reason, Ram Ratan and his party members were unhappy with the complainant party. On 15.10.1979 at about 8:00 AM, Shriniwas Ex-Sarpanch was taking a bath at the Well. Hari, Madan and Raghunath apprehended him and inflicted injuries to him with sticks. Sriniwas was seriously injured. Then the said persons came to the village and at their instigation, Ram Swaroop, Ram Ratan, Babu, Moti son of Lohariya Berva, Girraj, Parasram, Nathu, Madroop, Moti Lal son of Amar Lal Jat, Teja, Punya, Ram Dayal, Kailash, Parasram son of Devi Ram Jat, Radhey Shyam, Moti Lal son of Nathu Lal Jat, Hukam Chand, Ghanshyam, Ram Prasad, Gangaram, Rambharosi, Ram Prasad, Jagdish, Ram Chand, Jailad, Onkar, Laddu son of Ram Chand, Bala, Ramswaroop son of Onkar, Laddu son of Govinda Jat and Birbal came to the spot. Accused were armed with guns and stones attacked the complainant party. As a result, Laddu Lal, Kanhaiya, Shankar, Bhagirath, Onkar, Bajranga, Ghisi, Raghunath, Latoor, Mooli, Kanhaiya son of Harbhutiya, Sriniwas, Chandrabhan and Surajmal suffered injuries. 4. Raghunath fired a shot from his gun which hit Laddu Mali son of Gangla Mali and Madroop fired a shot from his gun which hit Ganga wife of Bala Mali. Both Laddu Mali and Ganga died at the spot. Madroop fired from his gun at Kanhaiya and he suffered injuries at his feet. 4. Raghunath fired a shot from his gun which hit Laddu Mali son of Gangla Mali and Madroop fired a shot from his gun which hit Ganga wife of Bala Mali. Both Laddu Mali and Ganga died at the spot. Madroop fired from his gun at Kanhaiya and he suffered injuries at his feet. Inderjeet re-loaded the gun of Madroop and then Madroop again fired and inflicted injuries to the injured and injured suffered injuries. Injured were removed to the hospital for treatment. 5. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against thirty-six persons namely Ramswaroop son of Amar Lal, Rathunath, Hari, Madroop, Inderjeet, Nathya, Laddu son of Ram Chandra, Birbal, Madan, Ram Prasad, Radhey Shyam, Punya, Girraj, Ghanshyam, Moti son of Nathu Jat, Parasram, Moti son of Amar Lal, Ramswaroop son of Onkar Berva, Teja, Ram Dayal, Kailash, Ram Chandra, Ram Kishan, Jagdish, Babu, Moti son of Lohariya Berva, Ram Prasad, Ram Bharosi, Balaram, Parasram son of Devi Ram, Ram Ratan, Hukm, Gangaram, Prahlad, Onkar son of Chhitar and Laddu son of Govind. 6. Charges were framed against the accused by the trial court as under:- Name of Accused Charges framed U/s. Raghunath, Hari 147, 323/149, 325/149, 302, 323, 325, 307/149, 148 and 452 IPC Madroop 323, 325, 147, 148, 323/149, 302/149, 325/149 and 307 IPC Inderjeet 147, 148, 452, 323, 302/149, 325/149 and 307 IPC Nathia 147, 148, 452/149, 323/149, 302/149, 325 and 307/149 IPC Laddu and Birbal 147, 148, 452, 323, 302/149, 325 and 307/149 IPC Madan 323, 325, 147, 148, 452, 325/149, 323/149, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC Laddu son of Govind, Onkar, Prahlad, Gangaram, Hukm, Ram Ratan, Parasram, Balaram, Ram Bharosi, Ram Prasad, Moti, Babu, Jagdish, Ram Kishan, Ram Chand, Kailash, Ram Dayal, Teja and Ramswaroop 147, 148, 452, 323, 325/149, 302/149 and 307/149 IPC Moti, Parasram, Moti son of Nathu, Ghanshyam, Girraj, Punya, Radhey Shyam, Chatru, Ramswaroop 147, 148, 452/149, 323/149, 302/149, 325/149 and 307/149 IPC 7. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 8. During trial, prosecution examined twenty-five witnesses. 9. Accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent. Accused examined two witnesses in their defence. 10. Court examined Prem Sagar Manocha (CW.1) as court witness. 11. Accused did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 8. During trial, prosecution examined twenty-five witnesses. 9. Accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent. Accused examined two witnesses in their defence. 10. Court examined Prem Sagar Manocha (CW.1) as court witness. 11. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 12.7.1985 ordered the acquittal of Ramswaroop, Birbal, Ram Prasad, Radhey Shyam, Punya, Girraj, Ghanshyam, Moti, Parasram, Moti son of Amar Lal, Ramswaroop son of Onkar, Teja, Ram Dayal, Kailash, Ram Chandra, Ram Kishan, Jagdish, Babu, Moti son of Johariya, Ram Prasad son of Dhuliya, Ram Bharosi, Parasram, Hukam Chand, Ganga Ram, Prahlad, Onkar and Laddu son of Govind. 12. Accused Madroop was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, whereas, accused Inderjeet was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. Accused Laddu son of Ram Chandra, Nathia and Ram Ratan were convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 452, 325, 323, 325/34 and 323/34 IPC. Accused Raghunath, Hari and Madan were convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 325 and 325/34 IPC. Hence, accused Inderjeet has filed appeal [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 322/1985] challenging his conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court. Accused Madan, Raghunath, Hari, Nathia, Laddu, Ram Ratan and Madroop have also filed appeal [D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 343/1985] challenging their conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial, whereas, State has sought leave to appeal against all the accused seeking their conviction and sentence with regard to the charges framed against them. 13. So far as accused Bala Ram is concerned, he had died during the pendency of trial. During pendency of the appeal, apart from accused Hari, Inderjeet, Raghunath and Madan, rest of the accused have died. 14. So far as appeal filed by the State is concerned, vide order dated 31.3.1987, leave to appeal was granted only qua three accused namely Hari, Madroop and Inderjeet and the same was dismissed qua rest of the accused respondents. Out of the said accused, Madroop has died during the pendency of the appeal. 15. Thus, so far as these appeals are concerned, we have to consider the case of accused Hari, Inderjeet, Raghunath and Madan with regard to their involvement in the crime. 16. Out of the said accused, Madroop has died during the pendency of the appeal. 15. Thus, so far as these appeals are concerned, we have to consider the case of accused Hari, Inderjeet, Raghunath and Madan with regard to their involvement in the crime. 16. Learned counsel for accused Inderjeet has submitted that the said accused had been falsely involved in this case. There was no cogent evidence on record to establish that he had reloaded the gun used by accused Madroop at the time of crime. Accused Inderjeet had been falsely involved in this case due to enmity. 17. Learned counsel for accused Madan, Raghunath and Hari have deposed that the said accused had been falsely involved in the case due to enmity. 18. Learned State Counsel has submitted that as per the eyewitness account accused Hari had fired at Ganga and as a result she had died. Eyewitness account was duly corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, learned trial court had erred in ordering the acquittal of accused Hari under Section 302 IPC. Accused Inderjeet was liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC, as he had assisted his co-accused Madroop in committing murder of Laddu. Learned State Counsel has opposed the appeals filed by accused Hari, Inderjeet, Raghunath and Madan. 19. Present case relates to murder of Ganga and Laddu Mali and with regard to injuries suffered by Bajranga P.W.1, Laddu Lal son of Bajrang Lal P.W.3, Kanhaiya P.W.4, Shankar P.W.5, Latoor Lal P.W.6, Kanhaiya son of Ram Chander P.W.7, Chandrabhan P.W.8, Rangnath P.W.9, Surajmal P.W.10, Bhagirath P.W.11, Sriniwas P.W.13 and Onkar P.W.17. So far as injured Bhanwari and Ghisi are concerned, they did not appear as witnesses before the trial court. 20. Eyewitnesses namely Nanaga P.W.14, Dhanji P.W.16 and Bhooli P.W.18 were examined, but they did not support the prosecution case, during trial. 21. Complainant Chhotu Lal P.W.2 while appearing in the witness box deposed as per the contents of the FIR. 22. Bajranga P.W.1 deposed that on the day of incident he was present in his house. Laddu and Nathia came there and inflicted injuries on his hands with a stick. Parasram inflicted injuries on his back with a stick. Nathia had inflicted injuries with a stick on his feet. 22. Bajranga P.W.1 deposed that on the day of incident he was present in his house. Laddu and Nathia came there and inflicted injuries on his hands with a stick. Parasram inflicted injuries on his back with a stick. Nathia had inflicted injuries with a stick on his feet. Girraj, Parasram, Inderjeet, Birbal, Swaroop and Moti entered his house armed with sticks and he did not know who had inflicted injuries to his wife and children inside the house. 23. Latoor Lal P.W.6 and Bhagirath P.W.11 have corroborated the statement of complainant Chhotu Lal P.W.2 with regard to the fact that accused Hari had fired at Ganga from his gun, whereas, accused Raghunath had fired from his gun at Laddu Mali. The said witnesses also deposed that the accused Inderjeet was helping accused Madroop in re-loading his gun. 24. Sriniwas P.W.13 had deposed that on the day of incident, he was taking bath at the Well. In the meantime, accused Hari, Raghunath and Madan came there. Accused Raghunath and Madan inflicted stick blows on his legs, whereas, accused Hari inflicted a stick blow on his left hand. 25. So far as other injured witnesses are concerned, they have not deposed with regard to the participation of accused Hari, Inderjeet, Raghunath and Madan in the crime. Therefore, their statements are not being reproduced. 26. Dr. Prem Chand Jain P.W.19 deposed with regard to the medico-legal reports of the injured prepared by him. Since we are concerned with the injuries suffered by Sriniwas P.W.13, his injuries as mentioned in Exhibit-P/10 proved by Dr. Prem Chand Jain P.W.19 are reproduced as under:- "1. Contusion, 3x2" over the dorsum of left hand, blunt. 2. Lacerated wound, 2"x1" over the antero-medial aspect of right leg at the junction of upper 2/3rd with lower third, grievous, blunt. 3. Lacerated wound, 2"x1", over the antero-medial aspect of the left leg at the same level as on other side, blunt." 27. Dr. Shiv Charan Gupta P.W.12 deposed that on 15.10.1979 he had conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Ganga and proved her Post Mortem Report ExhibitP/8. On the same day, he also conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Laddu Mali and he proved his Post Mortem Report Exhibit-P/9. 28. Dr. Shiv Charan Gupta P.W.12 deposed that on 15.10.1979 he had conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Ganga and proved her Post Mortem Report ExhibitP/8. On the same day, he also conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of Laddu Mali and he proved his Post Mortem Report Exhibit-P/9. 28. As per Post Mortem Report Exhibit-P/8, deceased Ganga had suffered following injuries:- "An Oval wound 1cm x 1cm, 10 cm about in depth, on the right clavicle just 3cm lateral to the inner end of right clavicle directed downwards, backwards and right to the left. No scathing, tatooing or blackening of the surroundings of the area of the wound. Antemortem in nature. Appear to be wound of entry." 29. Cause of death of deceased Ganga was haemorrhage and shock due to injury to right lung and large vessels due to gun shot. 30. As per Post Mortem Report Exhibit-P/9, deceased Laddu Mali had suffered following injuries:- "An oval wound 1cm x 1cm and 12 cms about in depth in between the inner end of both clavicle. 1Cm from inner end of right clavicle. No scathing, tatooing or blackening of the margins and surrounding area of the wound. Direction of wound is downward, backward from left to right. Antemortem in nature. Appear to be wound of entry." 31. Cause of death of deceased Laddu Mali was haemorrhage and shock due to injury to right lung and large vessels due to gun shot. 32. Prem Sagar Manocha (CW.1) proved the FSL Report Exhibit-C/1 with regard to the articles sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory including guns and pellets. A perusal of the report reveals that it was not possible to give opinion on pellets in order to link them with the muzzle loading guns marked W1 to W3. Report Exhibit-C/1 proved by Prem Sagar Manocha C.W.1 fails to connect accused Hari with the crime. 33. So far as accused Madan, Raghunath and Hari are concerned, they were convicted and sentenced with regard to the injuries inflicted by them to injured Sriniwas. So far as injuries suffered by injured Sriniwas are concerned, the ocular version in this regard is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. 33. So far as accused Madan, Raghunath and Hari are concerned, they were convicted and sentenced with regard to the injuries inflicted by them to injured Sriniwas. So far as injuries suffered by injured Sriniwas are concerned, the ocular version in this regard is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that accused Hari, Raghunath and Madan were rightly convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 325 and 325/34 IPC and their conviction and sentence as ordered by the trial court under Sections 325 and 325/34 IPC are liable to be upheld. 34. So far as accused Inderjeet is concerned, he was convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. As per Exhibit-P/45, double barrel gun was recovered at the instance of the accused Madroop. Allegation levelled against accused Inderjeet was that he was re-loading the gun used by accused Madroop. Complainant Chhotu Lal P.W.2 while appearing in the witness box deposed in his examination-in-chief that accused Inderjeet was re-loading the gun of accused Madroop. However, in his cross-examination, he deposed that the gun used by Madroop was double barrel gun and he had seen that Madroop was using the gun by loading it. Thus, from the cross-examination of complainant Chhotu Lal P.W.2, it is evident that the allegation levelled against accused Inderjeet that he was re-loading the gun of accused Madroop stood falsified. 35. Kanhaiya P.W.4 deposed that accused Inderjeet was reloading the gun used by accused Madroop. However, in his crossexamination, he deposed that he had suffered only one fire arm injury and thereafter he became unconscious and did not know as to how many shots were fired by accused Madroop. Hence, the allegation levelled by Kanhaiya P.W.4 against the accused Inderjeet that he was re-loading the gun used by accused Madroop stands falsified from his cross-examination. 36. Bhagirath P.W.11 also levelled allegation against the accused Inderjeet that he was re-loading the gun of accused Madroop. However, in his cross-examination, he deposed that the fact that accused Inderjeet was re-loading the gun of accused Madroop was not mentioned in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Exhibit-D/5. He further stated that he was having enmity against accused Inderjeet etc., relating to Rs.28,000/-. Thus, the statement of Bhagirath P.W.11 with regard to involvement of accused Inderjeet in the crime is rendered doubtful in view of his cross-examination. 37. He further stated that he was having enmity against accused Inderjeet etc., relating to Rs.28,000/-. Thus, the statement of Bhagirath P.W.11 with regard to involvement of accused Inderjeet in the crime is rendered doubtful in view of his cross-examination. 37. Thus, so far as involvement of accused Inderjeet in the crime is concerned, the same is rendered doubtful from the crossexamination of Chhotu Lal P.W.2, Kanhaiya P.W.4 and Bhagirath P.W.11. Other witnesses who had witnessed the incident have not deposed with regard to the involvement of accused Inderjeet in the crime. 38. Now, the only question that remains to be considered by us is with regard to the fact as to whether accused Hari had committed the murder of Ganga because in this regard, leave to appeal was granted to the State. So far as allegation of commission of murder of Laddu Mali by accused Raghunath is concerned, leave to appeal was not granted to the State in this regard. 39. Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of accused Hari with regard to charge framed against him under Section 302 IPC has observed that the eyewitness account was not corroborated by medical evidence. It has been noticed by the trial court the incident had occurred on 15.10.1979. Post Mortem Examination was allegedly conducted on 15.10.1079, however, the Post Mortem Report was sent to the Police on 24.10.1979 by the doctor. There was no explanation with regard to delay in sending the Post Mortem Report by the doctor to the Police. Plea was taken before the trial court that earlier Post Mortem Report sent by the doctor had not been received by the police. But there was no material on record in this regard, nor there was any letter from the Police to the doctor for asking him to send the second report. It has also been noticed by the trial court that Post Mortem Report available on record Exhibit-P/8 was the first copy. Hence, the plea put forth by the prosecution that first copy had been lost was without any basis. It has also been noticed by the trial court that there was no entry in the Dispatch Register maintained by the hospital with regard to the dispatching of Post Mortem Report on 15.10.1979. Hence, the plea put forth by the prosecution that first copy had been lost was without any basis. It has also been noticed by the trial court that there was no entry in the Dispatch Register maintained by the hospital with regard to the dispatching of Post Mortem Report on 15.10.1979. It has also been noticed by the trial court that as per the medical evidence, there was only one entry wound of the gun shot on the dead body of Ganga. If that be so, it was not explained as to what happened to the pellets, which had entered the body of deceased because no pellets were recovered from the dead body. A plea was taken before the trial court that it was possible that pellets might have been vomited out by the deceased. Learned trial court rightly held that, if that be so, then the said pellets should have been taken in possession by the police from the spot, as the dead body was recovered from the spot. It has also been observed by the trial court that he had visited the spot and it was not possible for the eyewitness to have witnessed the shot fired by accused Hari, which had hit the deceased Ganga from the place where they had allegedly witnessed the incident. 40. Hence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the ocular version was not corroborated by medical evidence and it had itself visited the spot and felt that the eyewitnesses could not have witnessed the incident from the place where they were allegedly standing. Moreover, there is no material on record that the gun recovered from accused Hari was used in the commission of crime. The view taken by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the present case is a possible view. 41. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 1 RCR(Criminal) 748 , has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 42. 41. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 1 RCR(Criminal) 748 , has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 42. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: "It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed" 43. Hence, we are of the considered view that no interference with regard to acquittal of accused Hari vis-a-vis charge relating to commission of murder of Ganga by him is made out. 44. Accordingly, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.322/1985 titled Inderjeet vs. State of Rajasthan is allowed and accused Inderjeet is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The impugned judgment/order dated 12.7.1985 qua accused Inderjeet are set aside. 45. So far as conviction of accused Hari, Raghunath and Madan under Section 325 and 325/34 IPC ordered by the trial court is concerned, the same is upheld. 46. Learned counsel for the accused appellants has submitted that the accused Hari, Raghunath and Madan are facing trial since the year 1979 and their sentences be reduced to the period already undergone by them. Presently, accused Hari is aged about 75 years, whereas Raghunath is aged about 71 years and accused Madan is aged about 64 years. 47. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence of accused Hari, Raghunath and Madan is reduced to the period already undergone by them. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 343/1985 stands disposed of, accordingly. 48. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 142/1987 filed by the State stands dismissed.