JUDGMENT 1. State has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 5.4.1986, whereby, respondents were acquitted of the charges framed against them. 2. Learned state counsel has submitted that so far as respondents no.1 & 2 are concerned, they have died during the pendency of the appeal. 3. We have heard learned state counsel and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 4. Respondents had faced trial qua offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 & 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per the prosecution story, respondents had fired at the deceased Mahaveer and Shivram and had thereafter fled away from the spot. 5. Learned trial court while ordering the acquittal of the respondents has taken in consideration the fact that prosecution case was rendered doubtful as the alleged eye-witnesses could not have witnessed the incident as the place of incident was not visible from the place where the eye-witnesses were stated to be present. It has been further noticed by the trial court that there was no motive left with the accused to have committed the murder of the deceased as a compromise had been arrived in the earlier criminal case pending between the parties. 6. 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. 7. 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. 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. 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" 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, the view taken by the trial court is a possible one. 9. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed.