JUDGMENT : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. The above three appeals have been preferred assailing correctness of the judgment and order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anand in Sessions Case Nos.8 of 2006 and 10 of 2006 whereby all the accused (53 in number) have been acquitted of all the offences under which they were charged which include offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 332, 337, 153(3), 454, 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. Criminal Appeal Nos.66 of 2011 has been preferred by the State and Criminal Appeal Nos.714 of 2011 & 715 of 2011 have been preferred by the complainant side. 3 The incident is of unlawful assembly entering into rioting, loot, arson, causing bodily injuries and other related offences. The incident, is alleged to have taken place at 4:30 p.m. on 01.03.2002 near the Masjid in village Vasad, Vasad Police Station, District Anand. The First Information Report is lodged by Harisingh Noparam Jhat, Assistant Sub-Inspector, SRP Group 10 Company D, Ukai, which was registered as I-C.R.No.49 of 2002, Vasad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 436, 332, 337 and 153 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The incident, as described in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the trial Court, is reproduced below: “2 The fact of the case of prosecution against the accused persons is such that the communal riots have been erupted in Gujarat State as a reaction of the train massacre which took place at Godhra on 27-02-2002, in that connection, the accused persons of this case, in collusion with the other people and the mob of about 3 to 4 thousand people have gathered at about 16:30 hours on 01-03-2002 at Vasad with an intention to take revenge on the Muslims, have formed unlawful assembly, equipped themselves with deadly weapons like scythes, spears, sticks, swords etc. and started stone pelting on the Mosque situated near the Tower of Vasad. The S.R.P. personnel tried to persuade them, but the mob turned out of control and the Mosque and the houses of Muslims were sabotaged and set on fire. and started stone pelting on the Mosque situated near the Tower of Vasad. The S.R.P. personnel tried to persuade them, but the mob turned out of control and the Mosque and the houses of Muslims were sabotaged and set on fire. When the personnel of S.R.P. gave warning to this unruly mob, they pelted stones on S.R.P. and as they have set on fire the Mosque and houses of the Muslims, the personnel of S.R.P. have started firing, in which Pareshbhai @ Dipakbhai Ishwarbhai Parekh, Lilaben Maheshbhai Ambalal Shah and Pinkalben Bhupendrabhai Ramanbhai Soni have died in firing and injuries were sustained to accused nos.1 to 9 and all the accused persons and the mob of remaining people have sabotaged and set on fire at Vasad Tower Takiya, Kumbharvada, Vasad Vadala, Devpura, Vasad Cross Roads, Sangam Hotel Compound, Pashwa Complex Compound, Luv-Kush Apartment, Hirakunj Society, Unnat Hotel, drinking water tank of cold water situated near Hotel Kismat and the Dargah located in the farm opposite to Toll Booth. They also sabotaged the houses of the Muslims who left and robbed their utensils, articles, precious ornaments of gold and silver, household goods and cash amount, thus in total they have caused loss of lakhs of rupees. The accused no. 44 & 45 have looted the amount of Rs.1,42,000/- from the house of witness nos. 56 & 63. Though the Notification of the District Magistrate about prohibition to keep arms was in force, they have violated it, hence have committed an offence. The complaint regarding the same was lodged against the mob of about 3 to 4 thousand by Harising Jat of S.R.P. Group no.10 who was on-duty at the relevant time at 18:15 hours on 01-03-2002. The on-duty P.S.0. at the relevant time had recorded the complaint and allotted the further investigation to P.l. – Mr.Ranmalsinh Chandrasinh Rathod - who was rendering his duly as P.S.I. at the relevant time. I.O. - Mr. Rathod has recorded the statements of the witnesses of this case. He had seized the cases of bullets which were used at the time of police firing in presence of the Panchas. I.O. - Mr. Rathod has recorded the statements of the witnesses of this case. He had seized the cases of bullets which were used at the time of police firing in presence of the Panchas. He carried out the procedures to fill Inquest on dead body of 3 persons and for P.M. of the dead body of the deceased, and handed over the dead body after P.M. He drew the Panchnama of the scene of offence, recorded the statements of the witnesses. Received the Treatment Certificate and P.M. note of the deceased. As the names of the accused persons were found out during the investigation, at first 9 accused persons were arrested on 21-03-2002 and 44 accused persons were arrested on 19-07-2002. The clothes were seized of the S.R.P. personnel who were present at the time of incident and the clothes of 3 persons who were died. As there was sufficient evidence against the accused persons, the Chargesheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (F.C.) of Anand. As the said Ld. Judge does not have the jurisdiction to run the trial of this case, he had committed this case to Sessions Court, Nadiad u/s. 209 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 12-07-2004. It was registered vide Sessions Case no. 199 of 2003 at the relevant time. The said case was tried in the Court of Addl. Sessions Court, Camp Court, at Anand at the relevant time. It was transferred (to this Court) for further procedure.” 4. Two sessions cases were registered for the reason that one of the accused (No.4) Keyurbhai Ashokbhai Patel was absconding, as such the original charge sheet was only against 52 accused viz. 1, 2, 3, 5 to 53 and later on the said accused No.4 was arrested and separate charge sheet was submitted and as such a separate sessions case was registered. However, both the sessions cases were clubbed and tried together. The trial Judge framed the charges on 16.06.2004 based upon the police report against the accused for the alleged offences in support of which evidence was collected. 5. The police during the investigation collected 34 documentary evidence which were exhibited and proved during the trial. The prosecution further examined as many as 90 witnesses. The list of witnesses include formal witnesses as well as witnesses of fact. 5. The police during the investigation collected 34 documentary evidence which were exhibited and proved during the trial. The prosecution further examined as many as 90 witnesses. The list of witnesses include formal witnesses as well as witnesses of fact. The witnesses of fact were further categorised into two categories; (i) who had sufferred losses i.e. victims, but had not seen the commission of crime; and (ii) who were eye witnesses to the occurrence and may have also sufferred loss of property or had suffered injuries. Prosecution examined the following 90 witnesses during the trial: PW No. Exh. Name of Witness 1. 77 Madhusudan Jayantilal Soni 2. 79 Chandubhai Shanabhai Gohil 3. 81 Rajeshbhai Kantibhai Patel 4. 83 Undesinh Bhathibhai Parmar 5. 84 Bhalabhai Chaturbhai 6. 89 Ramabhai Pujabhai Zala 7. 91 Dilipsinh Chhatrasinh Parmar 8. 92 Nitinbhai Thakorbhai Patel 9. 94 Sureshbhai Prabhatbhai Gameti 10. 96 Kantibhai Mithabhai 11. 98 Ramanbhai Lavjibhai Rohit 12. 99 Naginbhai Bhupatbhai Parmar 13. 101 Alpeshbhai Ramanbhai Parmar 14. 102 Jayantibhai Chhitubhai Vasava 15. 108 Mahammad Hanif Fakirmahammad Memon 16. 109 Firoz Mohsinali Vohra 17. 110 Nazirbhai Ibrahimbhai 18. 111 Murlidhar Hiralal Shah 19. 112 Shafi Mohammed Fakirmohammed Memon 20. 113 Husseinali Sharif Tharadara 21. 114 Iqbalbhai Adambhai 22. 115 Yunusbhai Isubbhai Vohra 23. 116 Salimbhai Yusufbhai Vohra 24. 117 Madinabibi Widow of Kalusha Subhratisha Diwan 25. 118 Ibrahimbhai Adambhai Vohra 26. 119 Habibsha Alaudinsha Diwan 27. 120 Haji Hasambhai Chhotani 28. 121 Asiquali Basirali Sheikh 29. 122 Swatiben Maheshkumar 30. 123 Maheshbhai Ambalal Shah 31. 124 Jashbhai Prabhudas 32. 125 Bhupendrabhai Ramanbhai Soni 33. 126 Ishwarbhai Shankarbhai Parekh 34. 127 Abdulwahab Mahammad Hanif Pathan 35. 128 Mahammad Rafiq Diwan 36. 129 Ayubsha Alauddin Diwan 37. 133 Ambusha Lallubha Diwan 38. 134 Idrishbhai Ganibhai 39. 135 Mahammadsha Ambusha Diwan 40. 136 Jashbhai Fatesinh 41. 137 Mehboobbhai Jashbhai Malek 42. 138 Kalubhai Jashbhai 43. 139 Himmatsinh Udesinh 44. 140 Rahimaben Widow of Ganibhai Ibrahimbhai 45. 141 Sirajbhai Alijbhai 46. 142 Rajubhai Bhikhabhai Vohra 47. 143 Yusubsha Pirasha Diwan 48. 144 Ganibhai Adambhai 49. 145 Mumtazben w/o. Rafiqbhai Mehboobbhai 50. 146 Dr. Hemang Rameshchandra Shah 51. 153 Sikandersha Jivasha Diwan 52. 154 Manuben w/o. Mahammad Hanif Sumansha Diwan 53. 155 Kherunaben w/o. Mustufa Motisha Diwan 54. 156 Shantaben alias Sushilaben widow of Chhotabhai Parmar 55. 157 Abdulmajid Abdulrasidkhan Pathan 56. 158 Jamelaben widow of Rahimbhai Jivabhai 57. 161 Munnabhai alias Noormohammed Adambhai Vohra 58. 145 Mumtazben w/o. Rafiqbhai Mehboobbhai 50. 146 Dr. Hemang Rameshchandra Shah 51. 153 Sikandersha Jivasha Diwan 52. 154 Manuben w/o. Mahammad Hanif Sumansha Diwan 53. 155 Kherunaben w/o. Mustufa Motisha Diwan 54. 156 Shantaben alias Sushilaben widow of Chhotabhai Parmar 55. 157 Abdulmajid Abdulrasidkhan Pathan 56. 158 Jamelaben widow of Rahimbhai Jivabhai 57. 161 Munnabhai alias Noormohammed Adambhai Vohra 58. 162 Bhikhabhai Shabaibhai Vohra 59. 163 Aminaben Yusufbhai Vohra 60. 164 Shantaben w/o. Pujabhai Gamechi 61. 168 Abbasbhai Habibbhai Jagrara 62. 169 Mustufabhai Ganibhai Qureshi 63. 170 Idris Alauddin 64. 171 Ashrafbaig Abdulbaig Mirza 65. 172 Saifuddin Akbarali 66. 173 Nareshkumar Govindlal Bhalja 67. 179 Sabbirbhai Chhatrasinh Chauhan 68. 180 Rafiqbhai Mehmoodbhai Malek 69. 181 Shirajsha Alauddinsha Diwan 70. 182 Tirthraj Balgovind Upadhyay 71. 183 Ashok Ramdas Kor 72. 184 Ramanbhai Gulambhai Gameti 73. 193 Ravjibhai Himmatsinh Gohil 74. 195 Harisinh Noparam Jat 75. 197 Shakinaben Yusufbhai Vohra 76. 198 Waheedaben Anwarbhai Vohra 77. 199 Yusufbhai Rasoolbhai Vohra 78. 202 Mahemudbhai Abdulrahim Mansuri 79. 208 Satarbhai Aadambhai Vohra 80. 209 Aadambhai Shabhaibhai 81. 210 Madinaben Aadambhai 82. 211 Salimbhai Aadambhai 83. 213 Samimben Salimbhai Vohra 84. 214 Anvarbhai Yusufbhai Vohra 85. 215 Ismailbhai Yusufbhai Vhora 86. 347 Dr. Hirenkumar Nandlal Zha 87. 347 Yusufbhai Alimohamad Sunesara 88. 351 Dr. Abhyud Verma 89. 352 Yusubkhan Nasibkhan 90. 357 Ranmalsinh Chandrasinh Rathod 6. Briefly we will deal with the relevant witnesses, the purpose for which they were examined, whether they supported the prosecution case and if yes to what extent and / or whether they turned hostile. PW Nos. 1 to 14 are panch witnesses, who were said to be signatories to the recovery memos. The recovery memos related to the damage caused to vehicles, injuries caused to the accused, damage caused to houses and shops, recovery of clothes, damage caused to Masjid and Dargah, etc. All these 14 witnesses i.e. PW Nos. 1 to 14 did not support the prosecution case and accordingly upon an application being moved by the Public Prosecutor, the trial Judge declared them hostile and allowed the prosecution to cross-examine them. PW Nos.15, 16 and 17 were produced as witnesses to support the prosecution case, but their evidence is totally based on hearsay. 1 to 14 did not support the prosecution case and accordingly upon an application being moved by the Public Prosecutor, the trial Judge declared them hostile and allowed the prosecution to cross-examine them. PW Nos.15, 16 and 17 were produced as witnesses to support the prosecution case, but their evidence is totally based on hearsay. PW Nos.18 to 25, 27, 28, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 75, 76 and 77 had sufferred losses (they are victims of occurrence), but they were not present at the time of occurrence and as such had not seen the commission of crime. PW Nos.26, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 51, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 are the witnesses of fact, who have sufferred also and had witnessed the occurrence. PW Nos.70, 71 and 72 are the Police officers, who were injured in the occurrence and have been examined as eye witnesses of the incident. The remaining witnesses are the family members of the three deceased, who have been examined to identify the dead bodies and they had also narrated some part of the incident, but have not been able to identify any of the accused. Other witnesses are doctors, who had given treatment to the injured both to the police officials as also the accused side and had conducted autopsy on the body of the three deceased. Rest of the witnesses are formal witnesses of the Police Department, who have proved the police papers. 7. The trial Court, after considering the entire material on record both documentary and oral, recorded the following findings: [1] The prosecution has fully established that an unlawful assembly had collected at the given date, time and place and it had committed arson, loot, rioting and damaging private as well as public property. [2] In the said incident, three persons from the accused side died of bullet injuries, which was a result of private firing and not police firing. [3] A number of accused had received injuries, which were duly examined and proved. [4] A number of Police officials had received injuries, which were also examined and proved. [2] In the said incident, three persons from the accused side died of bullet injuries, which was a result of private firing and not police firing. [3] A number of accused had received injuries, which were duly examined and proved. [4] A number of Police officials had received injuries, which were also examined and proved. [5] Even though the witnesses of the recovery memos (panch witnesses) had turned hostile, but nevertheless it was proved that the loss of life and property had taken place in the given incident. [6] The eye witnesses produced by the prosecution did not instill and inspire confidence in placing reliance upon their testimonies in the identification of the accused. [7] The trial Court discussed each of the eye witnesses both their examination in chief and also their cross-examination, but could not find even one eye witness worthy of reliance, for the reasons given in the judgment. [8] Once there was no reliable and credible evidence to prove the charge against any of the accused, the trial Court recorded acquittal of all the accused for all the offences they were charged. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.66 of 2011, whereas the complainant side has preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.714 of 2011 and 715 of 2011. 9. We have heard Mr. Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State appellant, Mr. Y.V.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the victims’ appeal, Mr. Vijay Patel, learned advocate for M/s. H.L.Patel Advocates representing all the respondents except respondent No.12, who is represented by Mr. P.P.Majmudar. 10. Mr.Amin, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution before the Trial Court which completely and without any iota of doubt proved the charges against all the accused, but despite the same the learned Trial Judge against the weight of evidence on record recorded acquittal. According to Shri Amin there were five eye-witnesses account which were unimpeachable namely that of P.W. No.26, 79, 80, 82 and 51 (Exhibits – 119, 208, 209, 211 and 153 respectively). Shri Amin took us to the relevant contents of their statements and submitted that they had proved the guilt of the named accused and as such the accused named by these five witnesses ought to have been convicted and sentenced accordingly. 11. Shri Amin took us to the relevant contents of their statements and submitted that they had proved the guilt of the named accused and as such the accused named by these five witnesses ought to have been convicted and sentenced accordingly. 11. Further Shri Y.V.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel appearing for the complainant in their appeals submitted that in addition to the aforesaid five witnesses relied upon by Shri Amin, reliance may be placed upon eight other witnesses of fact namely PW-78, PW-83, PW-84, PW-85, PW- 70, PW-71, PW-72 and PW-74 (Exhibits-202, 213, 214, 215, 182, 183, 184 and 195 respectively). Drawing our attention to the statements of the aforesaid witnesses Shri Brahmbhatt submitted that the accused whose names have been taken by these witnesses could not have been acquitted and the learned Trial Judge committed serious error in discarding the evidence of these witnesses and recording an acquittal. 12. Learned counsels for the appellants namely Shri Amin, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Brahmbhatt, learned counsel submitted that the learned Trial Judge discarded evidence of these witnesses as not reliable and credible for flimsy reasons and minor contradictions, thereby vitiating the findings recorded by it. Shri Brahmbhatt also placed reliance upon Section 114 of the Evidence Act and submitted that all those who had formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and with a pre- planned motive, presumption ought to have been drawn against them for having committed the crime of riot, loot and arson. 13. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Patel, learned counsel for H.L.Patel Advocates appearing for all the respondent accused except accused No.12 represented by Shri S.P.Majmudar, drew our attention to the statements of all these witnesses relied upon by the appellants and took us to the relevant portions which impeach their testimony and discredited the same making it unworthy of reliance. Shri Majmudar representing respondent No.12 adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Patel. 14. We will deal with the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the appellants as also the respondents, but before that we will record a general view on the evidence led during the trial. We are in agreement that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the prosecution had fully established the occurrence of the incident at the given date, time and place. It was also established that there had been damage to the property. We are in agreement that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the prosecution had fully established the occurrence of the incident at the given date, time and place. It was also established that there had been damage to the property. It is also established beyond doubt that there had been arson, loot and robbery. The question therefore which lies for determination by us and as also dealt with by the Trial Judge in detail is as to who committed the crime. Whether any of the accused facing the trial had committed any of the offence alleged? Whether the prosecution had led reliable, credible and unimpeachable evidence to establish that it was the accused and the accused alone or some of the accused who had committed the crime by being actually present in that unlawful assembly at the given date, time and place with deadly weapons and were a party to the commission of the crime? 15. As already recorded above, Shri Mitesh Amin, learned Public Prosecutor had relied upon five eyewitnesses, whereas Shri Brahmbhatt added eight more witnesses on which he placed reliance which also included the Police Officials examined by the prosecution who are said to have suffered injuries in the entire transaction. We will deal with each of these witnesses at a later stage. 16. It would be relevant to record here that three persons, two women and one man, namely Lilaben Maheshbhai Ambalal Shah, Pinkalben Bhupendrabhai Ramanbhai Soni and Pareshbhai @ Dipakbhai Ishwarbhai Parekh died due to bullet injuries in the said transaction. It has been proved by the prosecution that these bullet injuries were caused by private shooting and not by firing by Police. Evidence has come on record that the complainant community had actually opened fire because of which three persons died. The cause of the death of these three deceased is not an issue in the present trial out of which these appeals arise. 17. At the outset, we may refer to the settled principles on the scope of hearing appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. 18. The cause of the death of these three deceased is not an issue in the present trial out of which these appeals arise. 17. At the outset, we may refer to the settled principles on the scope of hearing appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal. 18. Pertaining to the question of an appeal against acquittal and the scope of power of appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, it is appropriate to refer Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621 , in which while explaining the duty of the appellate court, the Supreme Court has expressed thus: “It is the duty of an appellate Court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final Court of Appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.” 19. In K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCR 363 : (1979) 1 SCC 355 : AIR 1979 SC 387 , the Supreme Court was considering the power of the High Court against an order of acquittal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Chinnappa Reddy, J. after considering the relevant decisions on the point stated: "The principles are now well settled. At one time it was thought that an order of acquittal could be set aside for 'substantial and compelling reasons' only and Courts used to launch on a search to discover those 'substantial and compelling reasons'. Chinnappa Reddy, J. after considering the relevant decisions on the point stated: "The principles are now well settled. At one time it was thought that an order of acquittal could be set aside for 'substantial and compelling reasons' only and Courts used to launch on a search to discover those 'substantial and compelling reasons'. However, the 'formulae' of 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficiently cogent reasons' and 'strong reasons' and the search for them were abandoned as a result of the pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1961) 3 SCR 120 . In Sanwat Singh's case, this Court harked back to the principles enunciated by the Privy Council in Sheo Swamp v. Emperor (1934) 61 IA 398 and re-affirmed those principles. After Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, this Court has consistently recognised the right of the Appellate Court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, bearing in mind the considerations mentioned by the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup's case. Occasionally phrases like 'manifestly illegal', 'grossly unjust', have been used to describe the orders of acquittal which warrant interference. But, such expressions have been used more, as flourishes of language, to emphasise the reluctance of the Appellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal than to curtail the power of the Appellate Court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion. In some cases (Ramabhupala Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P. AIR 1971 SC 460 , Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 286 ), it has been said that to the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh's case may be added the further principle that "if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the Trial Court". This, of course, is not a new principle. It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. It stems out of the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable". (emphasis supplied) In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 , this Court said; "While setting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then-and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions". In Alarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC 57 , referring to earlier decisions, the Court stated; "The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. In a case where the trial court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the trial court which may not be disturbed in the appeal is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted by the trial court, cannot be made a basis to urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a finding".” 20 Therefore, taking into consideration the above decisions, it can be concluded that the power of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal is the same as that of an appeal against conviction. But, in an appeal against acquittal, the Court has to bear in mind that the presumption of innocence is in favour of the accused and it is strengthened by the order of acquittal. At the same time, appellate Court will not interfere with the order of acquittal mainly because two views are possible, but only when the High Court feels that the appreciation of evidence is based on erroneous considerations and when there is manifest illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. 21. In Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka ( 2007 (4) SCC 415 ), the court stated certain general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 22. We will now proceed to deal with the statement of each of the witnesses relied upon by the appellants and weigh out the credibility and reliability thereof. As Mr.Brahmbhatt has also referred to the witnesses relied upon by Mr. Amin, we are referring to the submissions made by Mr. Brahmbhatt in detail. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that, from the depositions of police personnel i.e. PW-70 Exh-182, PW-71 Exh-183, PW-72 Exh-184, PW-74 Exh-195, PW-90 Exh-357 it clearly appears that on 01-03- 2002 at about 16:30 the mob of 3000 to 4000 persons came towards the mosque and cordoned mosque from all sides. It is further submitted that all members of the assembly were armed with scythes (dharia), sword and spears and they were pelting stones. As per the instructions of guard commander to disperse the mob who were out of control, first lathi charge was resorted but as they set the mosque on fire and the mob was shouting to kill S.R.P. and Muslims, the police personnel fired one round in air and upon instructions another fire was made and 10 rounds consequently was fired. As per the instructions of guard commander to disperse the mob who were out of control, first lathi charge was resorted but as they set the mosque on fire and the mob was shouting to kill S.R.P. and Muslims, the police personnel fired one round in air and upon instructions another fire was made and 10 rounds consequently was fired. It is, therefore submitted that considering the evidence of police personnel the mob formed unlawful assembly with deadly weapons with a common object and intention and they cordoned the mosque, however, they could not identify any of the assailants and it is clear that the persons armed with deadly weapons, formed unlawful assembly, robbed and damaged property. 23.1 It is further submitted that considering and evaluating the evidence of witnesses PW-26 Exh-119- Habibsha, he has given names of 3 accused (1) Dineshbhai Manibhai, (2) Shambhubhai Rameshbhai (3) Bakabhai Rameshbhai all were having dharia. This witness has identified all the three accused before the court and further deposed that one person named Vitthalbhai Dahyabhai Patel, Dehlavala is not present before the court. In the cross examination, this witnesses has admitted that earlier in his 3 police statements he has not given the names of these 3 witnesses. He has also not deposed the name of assailants in his police statement. This witness has fairly admitted the real truth and he has not suppressed anything. This witness has given name of three accused persons, and there is no reason to disbelieve the presence of three persons in the unlawful assembly. This witness has not given name of more persons even after long period and no persons are wrongly identified. 23.2 Considering and evaluating the evidence of PW- 51 Exh-153 it is submitted that this witness has given name of (1) Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel (2) Shambhubhai Rameshbhai Patel (3) Atulkumar Kantibhai Patel (3) Bakabhai Rameshbhai Patel and identified other persons by seeing them. This witness has identified all the persons in the court. While one person is identified by face whose name was Kaushikbhai Mohanbhai. There is no discrepancy in the deposition of this witness and looking to the crossexamination no material has been brought on record to disbelieve the deposition of this witness. This witness has identified all the persons in the court. While one person is identified by face whose name was Kaushikbhai Mohanbhai. There is no discrepancy in the deposition of this witness and looking to the crossexamination no material has been brought on record to disbelieve the deposition of this witness. The evidence of this witness is reliable and believable, however, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of this witness and wrongly disbelieved the evidence of this witness. 23.3 Further, looking to the evidence of PW-79 Exh- 208, it is submitted that this witness has given names of (1) Dineshbhai Manibhai (2) Shambhubhai Manibhai (3) Madhavbhai Ramanbhai (4) Rakeshbhai Jashbhai (5) Narayanbhai Dahyabhai (6) Bhaveshbhai Shashikant (7) Prafulbhai Lallubhai (8) Samirbhai Indubhai (9) Munnabhai Naginbhai (10) Munnabhai Jitubhai (11) Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai (12) Kaushikbhai Khushalbhai (13) Kaushikbhai Contractor of Gram Panchayat (14) Bhaveshbhai Bhalabhai, who blazed Indica car and also committed offence of illegal trespass, robbery of household items. This witness had occurred a loss of Rs.7,00,000/-, however, the Police has not recorded his statement. Further, this witness has identified Madhavbhai Ramanbhai whose name is Prakashbhai Ramanbhai, Vimalbhai Dahyabhai is identified as Naranbhai Dahyabhai, and Bhaveshbhai Shashikant is identified but his name is Bhaveshbhai Hasmukhbhai. Further, Rameshbhai Naginbhai is identified as Munnabhai Naginbhai, Amarbhai Jitubhai is identified as Munnabhai Jitubhai, Hiteshbhai Ramanbhai is identified as Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai, Kaushikbhai Contractor of Gram Panchayat is identified and his name is Kaushikbhai Mohanbhai while all others are identified correctly as per their names. This witness had not falsely identified any person but he has identified the accused by name. Naranbhai Dahyabhai is identified as Vimalbhai Dahyabhai and that does not mean that he has wrongly identified this accused. Further, Bhaveshbhai is identified but his father’s name was Hasmukhbhai, Munnabhai is identified but his name was Rameshbhai Naginbhai, so they may have pet names. Munnabhai Jitubhai is also identified but his pet name is Amarbhai Jitubhai. Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai is identified but his name is Hiteshbhai Ramanbhai. It is further submitted that no accused person is wrongly identified by this witness and looking to the cross-examination, he has given true and proper deposition and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence as he is residing in the same area. Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai is identified but his name is Hiteshbhai Ramanbhai. It is further submitted that no accused person is wrongly identified by this witness and looking to the cross-examination, he has given true and proper deposition and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence as he is residing in the same area. However, the police has not recorded his statement at the earliest and it cannot be said that his evidence is unreliable and not credible. It is further submitted that this witness has also not falsely involved any of the persons, who are not identified by him even after lapse of period. 23.4 Next submission is that PW-80 Exh-209 has identified and given names of (1) Dineshbhai Manibhai (2) Shambhubhai Rameshbhai (3) Rameshbhai Shanabhai (4) Ramanbhai Matthurbhai Gameschi (5) Nathubhai Maganbhai (6) Hiteshbhai Ramanbhai (7) Tinabhai Ramanbhai and (8) Ashokbhai Bhagvanbhai. This witness has not identified Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Gamechi, as he was not present in the court room, while Sanjaybhai Ramanbhai is identified as Tinabhai Ramanbhai. In fact there is nothing wrong, as the pet name of Sanjaybhai is Tinabhai. All other accused are identified by this witness. Further, looking to the cross-examination of this witness there is nothing against his examination-in-chief. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. This witness has also stated that police has not asked anything to him. His deposition is fully believable and reliable, however the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved his evidence and acquitted the accused. The evidence of this witness cannot be discarded on the ground that first time he has identified this witness before the court and no identification parade is held before the executive magistrate. This witness has deposed that after 6 months he returned to his home and even after lapse of this much period he has not falsely roped any person in the offense and he has given true facts before the court. 23.5 It is then submitted the evidence of PW-82 Exh- 211 is reliable and believable. This witness has given names of (1) Dineshbhai (2) Shambhubhai (3) Atulbhai (4) Rakeshbhai (5) Bhaveshbhai (6) Ramanbhai (7) Bhanubhai (8) Naranbhai (9) Nathubhai (10) Melabhai and (11) Kaushikbhai. He has also deposed that the accused persons set ablaze Indica car and pelted stones. He left his house under fear. This witness has given names of (1) Dineshbhai (2) Shambhubhai (3) Atulbhai (4) Rakeshbhai (5) Bhaveshbhai (6) Ramanbhai (7) Bhanubhai (8) Naranbhai (9) Nathubhai (10) Melabhai and (11) Kaushikbhai. He has also deposed that the accused persons set ablaze Indica car and pelted stones. He left his house under fear. He has identified Bhailalbhai Bhikhabhai as Bhanubhai and Vimalbhai is identified as Naranbhai, as this witness knew them by their pet names and all other accused by their real names. Further, there is no contradiction or exaggeration in the evidence of this witness and looking to the cross examination of this witness there is no material on record to disbelieve the evidence of this witness and though the evidence of this witness is credible, the learned trial Judge has not believed the same and erroneously acquitted all the accused persons. 23.6 In so far as evidence of PW-78 Exh-202 is concerned, it is submitted that the same is reliable, trustworthy and acceptable. He has given full descriptions of the incident. This witness has also deposed the incident of burning Indica car. He has identified (1) Sarpanch Dineshbhai Patel (2) Shambhubhai (3) Bakabhai (4) Thakor Manda (5) Son of Manda (6) Chetan (7) Elder son of Thakor Mana (8) Popatbhai (9) Sanjaybhai (10) Subhashbhai (11) Madhubhai and (12) Ramanbhai Gameti. This witness has identified Miteshbhai Ramanbhai as Bakabhai as his name is Miteshbhai @ Bakabhai. He has identified son of Thakor Manda and Chintanbhai Arvindbhai is identified as Chethan. Popatbhai is identified as Ashokbhai. Prakashbhai Ramanbhai is identified as Madhubhai and all others are identified as per their names. This witness has identified 8 persons by their face and their names are given. The statement of this witness is not recorded by the police. He has not falsely identified any persons or roped any persons falsely in the offence. However, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the deposition of this witness on the ground that there are many discrepancies. 23.7 It is also submitted that evidence of PW-83 Exh- 213 is most credible and believable and there is no reason to disbelieve evidence of this witness. She has given true and real deposition before the court. This witness has identified (1) Dineshbhai Sarpanch (2) Miteshbhai (3) Melabhai and (4) Bhalabhai and others are known by face. She has identified all the accused persons correctly. She has given true and real deposition before the court. This witness has identified (1) Dineshbhai Sarpanch (2) Miteshbhai (3) Melabhai and (4) Bhalabhai and others are known by face. She has identified all the accused persons correctly. There is no discrepancy in the evidence of this witness and looking to the cross-examination there is no contradiction and the evidence of this witness cannot be discarded. The evidence of this witness is highly reliable and credible. However the learned trial Court has not believed the same. This witness has not involved any innocent persons even after lapse of time. The learned trial Court has not believed this witness only because she has identified the accused persons in the court room for the first time and this reason is not valid to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. It is further submitted that relying upon evidence of this witness the accused can be convicted. 23.8 Further submission is that evidence of PW-84 Exh-214 is also reliable and credible and there is no reason for not believing the same. This witness has given full description of the incident. This witness has identified (1) Bakabhai whose name is Miteshbhai Ramanbhai (2) Shambhubhai (3) G.P. Bhai Ghanshyambhai owner of Bharat Pulse Mills. (4) Kaushikbhai (5) Gaurangbhai and (6) Bhurabhai. These persons were armed with weapons (Trishul) and carboys of petrol. Bakabhai was armed with revolver. Under fear they left their houses and from distance he has seen that they burnt Indica car. There was a crowd of approximately 100-150 persons. A person named Chitubhai and Bharatbhai took away a bag, which was of brother of this witness, in which there was Rs. 1,42,000/- given by finance company. This witness has identified Bakabhai, while Shambhubhai is identified but his name is Sandipbhai Rameshbhai, Bhurabhai is identified while his name is Bhaveshbhai Ramanbhai. Further, son of Harmanbhai is identified and his name is Dhirubhai Harmanbhai. Bhaveshbhai Hasmukhbhai is identified and his name as Bhavo Bareli and all others are identified as per their names. Even, there is no contradiction or exaggeration in the cross-examination of this witness. The evidence of this witness is trustworthy and reliable and there was no reason to disbelieve evidence of this witness. 23.9 Learned counsel next submitted that evidence of PW-85 Exh-215 is believable, acceptable and trustworthy. This witness has given true facts before the Court. Even, there is no contradiction or exaggeration in the cross-examination of this witness. The evidence of this witness is trustworthy and reliable and there was no reason to disbelieve evidence of this witness. 23.9 Learned counsel next submitted that evidence of PW-85 Exh-215 is believable, acceptable and trustworthy. This witness has given true facts before the Court. He has deposed that Bakabhai got down from the car with revolver, Shambhubhai Rameshbhai got down with Trishul, Kaushikbhai, Gaurangbhai, Bhaveshbhai Rameshbhai, G.P. Bharat Pulse Mills got down from the car. They were having petrol carboy and they set car at fire. This witness has identified Bakabhai whose name is Miteshbhai Ramanbhai, Pinkalbhai Bhupendrabhai is identified whose name is Kinjalbhai Bhupendrabhai, Bhaveshbhai Jeepwala is identified whose name is Bhaveshbhai Hasmukhbhai and all others are identified by their names. In the crossexamination this witness has deposed that after 7 month of the incident he has given statement before the Police and prior to that no statement has been given before police or court. This witness has also deposed that he was under fear and in fear he left his house for Borsad village. It is submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of this witness. However the learned trial Judge has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of this witness. 23.10 Learned counsel Mr. Brahmbhatt submits that looking to the provision of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding presumption against those who gathered, formed unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapon, set ablaze a car and attacked on the house of witnesses, the witnesses may not be able to give the description of whole incident and may not depose the acts of all the witnesses, but when the household items are robbed and damaged, naturally presumption would be that the persons who were present with deadly weapons in the unlawful assembly had participated and attacked and committed the offence. 23.11 Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that looking to the evidence of above witnesses, the prosecution has proved presence of accused persons and the evidence of witnesses are believable and acceptable. However, the learned trial Judge has wrongly disbelieved the same and acquitted the accused persons. Considering evidence of witnesses the judgment of trial court requires to be reversed and the accused are required to be convicted and sentenced appropriately. 24 Mr. However, the learned trial Judge has wrongly disbelieved the same and acquitted the accused persons. Considering evidence of witnesses the judgment of trial court requires to be reversed and the accused are required to be convicted and sentenced appropriately. 24 Mr. Vijay Patel, learned counsel for all the respondent accused except accused No.12 submitted that PW26 – Habibsha Allaudin Diwan, Exh.119 has deposed that a mob of 2000-4000 members, armed with different weapons, had committed the offence and therefore, they had apprehension that riots would take place and therefore, they had gone to Vasad Police Station and they were sent to Borsad in a Vasad Police Station vehicle. They stayed outside the Village for 5 days and then, they returned and found his house and shop demolished and he has identified the following persons as the members of the mob, accused No.10–Dineshbhai Manibhai accused No.11- Shambhubhai Rameshbhai and accused No.38–Bakabhai Rameshbhai. He also named one Vitthalbhai Dahyabhai who was not present in the Court. The said witness has stated in Paragraph 3 of his cross-examination that “I have not given names in my earlier police statement. It is true that today itself, I have stated the fact for the first time that 4 persons were standing with scythes and I have not stated the same in my earlier police statement.” 24.1 In Paragraph 4 of the cross-examination, he has further stated that “It is true that Dineshbhai Manibhai, Shambhubhai Rameshbhai, Baka @ Nitesh Ramesh are political leaders. It is true that I have given names of these persons today for the first time in the Court because they are political leaders. It is true that in all 3 of my earlier police statements, I have dictated the fact that I do not know the persons from the mob. It is true that mob containing of 2000-4000 persons of which I stated also included persons from nearby areas of Vasad in addition to the persons of Vasad.” It is, therefore, submitted that the witness has, in clear terms, admitted that he has named the aforesaid 3 respondents – accused for the first time in the Court despite the fact that he knew them well because they are political leaders. The witness has not given any explanation as to why he did not name these respondents – accused in his earlier 3 police statements. The witness has not given any explanation as to why he did not name these respondents – accused in his earlier 3 police statements. This fact creates strong room of doubt about the correctness of his deposition about the alleged presence of 3 persons in the mob coupled with the fact that he has also stated that the mob included persons from nearby areas of Vasad in addition to the persons from Vasad. 24.2 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel submitted that so far as evidence of police witnesses, namely, PW-70, PW-71, PW-72, PW-74, as stated herein above, they do not name any of the respondents – accused because they do not belong to the said Village and they were posted at Vasad on 01.03.2002 as per the deposition of PW-70 – Tirthraj Balgovind Upadhyay, Exh.182 (Paragraph 1) and therefore, they could not recognize any of the accused and therefore, in the humble submission of the respondents–accused, the said witnesses do not implicate any of the respondents– accused and therefore, they are not useful to the prosecution in any manner whatsoever. 24.3 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel submitted that so far as the evidence of PW-51 Sikandarsha Jivasha Diwan, Exh.53 is concerned, he has deposed that on 01.03.2002, leaders attacked them in form of a mob containing 2000- 3000 persons and therefore, they had gone to the Police Station at around 02:00 O'clock in the afternoon and as per the case of the prosecution, the offence took place at about 16:30 hrs. and the said witness along with others had also sent to Borsad in a police van and the said witness returned to Village Vasad after about 5 to 6 months. His house and shop were ransacked and damaged. The said witness has named the following accused in his deposition:- Sr. No. Accused No. Name of the accused 1 10 Dineshbhai Manibhai Patel 2 11 Shambhubhai Rameshbhai Patel 3 29 Atulkumar Kantibhai Patel 4 38 Bakabhai Rameshbhai Patel 24.4 He has further deposed that he has also seen so many others, but he does not know names of all those persons. He further stated in his deposition that he saw some of the persons in the mob who were present in the Court. He identified one person whose name is Kaushikbhai Mohanbhai Patel. He further stated in his deposition that he saw some of the persons in the mob who were present in the Court. He identified one person whose name is Kaushikbhai Mohanbhai Patel. He has further deposed in his crossexamination that he left for Borsad-cum-Vasad Police Station at about 07:00 p.m. and he remained in Vasad Police Station for 5 to 6 hours. He has also deposed that he took his family to the Police Station from the backside through the ravine. He has admitted in his crossexamination at Paragraph 2 that he did not say anything about the incident that they were attacked and have fled. He has further deposed that he was interrogated by the police after 6 months of the incident i.e. in the 8th month and he had stated true facts to the police in his police statement. He has further deposed that he has not stated in his police statement that he does not know as to who caused damage to his house, shop and mosque, etc. and that he does not know any names also. He has further deposed that he grew up in Vasad. He has also admitted the persons he named who are the leaders of Vasad and respondent – accused no.10 – Dineshbhai Manibhai is Sarpanch of the Village. He has also admitted in his cross-examination at Paragraph 2 that “It is true that I have not dictated any fact in my police statement that when we were attacked, we left the house from the back door. It is true that I have not dictated name of assailants in the police statement.” He has further deposed in Paragraph 3 of the cross-examination that “I have not dictated any fact that I saw the persons to whom I have identified today or the fact that I dictated about his appearance in my police statement.” The Court has noted that per-se the witness stated that the police did not inquire about it. It is, therefore, submitted that the witness himself admits in his cross-examination at Paragraph 2 that he did not name the persons in his police statement whose names had been given by him in his deposition. It is, therefore, submitted that the witness himself admits in his cross-examination at Paragraph 2 that he did not name the persons in his police statement whose names had been given by him in his deposition. This demolishes his entire evidence because he was interrogated by the police and he did not name any persons as assailants or persons of the mob and the witness, for the first time, in the Court named 3 persons who were leaders of the Village and he identified one person as the member of the mob, but at the same time, he admits in his cross-examination at Paragraph 3 that he did not state about him in his police statement or his appearance in the police statement. 24.5 It is further submitted that PW-78 Mehmud Abdulrahim Mansuri was examined at Exh.202. He has deposed in his evidence that he is the owner of Indica Car bearing registration no. GJ-7 R-9705 and on the day of the incident, the said car was set ablaze. He has deposed that he stays with his family at Kumarva, Vasad and he was engaged in the business of transport at that point of time. On 01.03.2002, he had to gone to Vadodara refinery and he returned at about 12:00 noon. He has deposed that he was sitting at the 3rd floor of the house with his wife and children and when they were about to have meal, he heard shouting that “burn Indica loot them do whatever you can”. He had seen burning Indica Car and after 15 to 20 minutes, the mob came towards his house. The mob entered the house breaking lock and he has identified the following accused:- Sr. No. Accused No. Names of the accused 1 10 Dineshbhai Patel 2 11 Shambhubhai 3 38 Bakabhai 4 49 Thakor Manada 5 ? Chetan elder son of Thakor Mana 6 Popatbhai 7 48, 27 Sanjaybhai 8 53 Subhashbhai 9 12 Madhubhai 10 50 Ramanbhai Gamit 24.6 The learned Sessions Judge has made a note that the witnesses replied after thinking a lot. He has further deposed that there were 100-150 members in the mob. They damaged house, they looted also. He has deposed that they had hidden themselves in the bathroom and police arrived after 15-20 minutes and everyone left after police arrived. He has, in term, stated that “Everyone had left after the police had arrived. He has further deposed that there were 100-150 members in the mob. They damaged house, they looted also. He has deposed that they had hidden themselves in the bathroom and police arrived after 15-20 minutes and everyone left after police arrived. He has, in term, stated that “Everyone had left after the police had arrived. Thereafter, we went out of the house and saw the situation around.” He further deposed that “all of us went out and felt that it was not advisable to stay there. Hence, we reached Borsad road through railway crossing by walking. We stopped a tempo there and requested them and left for Borsad in that tempo. 24.7 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has made a note that he identified Bakabhai by name who is Miteshbhai Ramanbhai – accused No.38 and the witness identified Chetan as a son of Thakor Manada is Chetan Arvindbhai – accused No.51 and the person who is identified as Popatbhai is Ashokbhai – accused No.46. The person who is identified as Madhubhai is Prakashbhai–accused No.12 and the person who is identified as Sarpanch–Dineshbhai Patel – accused No.10, Shambhubhai Patel-accused No.11, Thakor Manada - accused No.49, Sanjaybhai – accused No.48, Subhashbhai-accused No.53 and Ramanbhai–accused No.50. Accused further stated that he could identify some accused by face, but not by name and thereafter, he identified the following accused:- Sr. No. Accused No. Names 1 41 Gaurangkumar Arjunbhai 2 37 Melabhai Shankarbhai 3 18 Samirkumar Ishvarbhai 4 29 Atulbhai Kantibhai 5 22 Kaushikbhai Manubhai 6 23 Kaushikbhai Khushaldas 7 40 Bhaveshbhai Rameshbhai 8 50 Bhaveshkumar Hasmukhbhai 24.8 He further deposed in his cross-examination at Paragraph 3 that “It is true that I have stated in my statement recorded before the police that first of all, they had burnt my Indica Car and I was hidden in the toilet due to fear. In the deposition at present, I stated that I reached the terrace when they arrived to burn Indica Car. Out of these two, it is true that I went to terrace. Now, I state that it is true that I was hidden in bathroom and toilet and I was there when Indica burnt down. In the deposition at present, I stated that I reached the terrace when they arrived to burn Indica Car. Out of these two, it is true that I went to terrace. Now, I state that it is true that I was hidden in bathroom and toilet and I was there when Indica burnt down. It is not true that in my police statement recorded before the police, I have not stated that I went to terrace along with my wife and children when the mob arrived to burn Indica Car.” The Court has recorded that the witness voluntarily stated that he had dictated, but police could not record it. Similarly, there are many other improvements of the witness before the Court for which he had given the explanation that he had stated to the police but the police did not record it. This is also the same as to names of the accused also. It is the humble submission on behalf of the respondents that at not more than 6 times, he has stated that he is stated it to the police but the police did not record it. It is submitted that the witness is a businessman, he is having business of transport of 3 tankers and he has improved his version before the Court suitably to ensure that leaders of the Village are implicated in the offence. It is submitted that in his cross-examination, he has deposed that “I have not stated the names of Madhubhai, Popatbhai, elder son of Thakorbhai and others. I had dictated the names but the police did not record it. This is the quality of the evidence which has come before the Court for examining the truthfulness of the deposition of the witness. It is further stated by the said witness in Paragraph 6 of the deposition that “It is true that in the complaint of private firing registered vide CR no. I-57/02, Vasad Police Station, the police had recorded my statement as accused. It is not true that I have not stated in the police interrogation that I was at Vasad the entire day on 01.03.2002. I had stated that I was not at Vasad after 01:00 p.m. on that day. I-57/02, Vasad Police Station, the police had recorded my statement as accused. It is not true that I have not stated in the police interrogation that I was at Vasad the entire day on 01.03.2002. I had stated that I was not at Vasad after 01:00 p.m. on that day. It is true that I had informed the police that I had left on 27.02.2002 and returned after 15 days.” It is, therefore, submitted that the witness has admitted that he had left Vasad at about 01:00 p.m. on 01.03.2002 and in the same Paragraph, he deposed that he had informed the police that he had left Vasad on 27.02.2002 and returned after 15 days. It is, therefore, submitted that there is a strong room of doubt as to his presence on the day of the incident. 24.9 He has further deposed in Paragraph 7 of the deposition that “I did not try to give information at Borsad Police Station regarding the incident till my statement was recorded before the police.” He has also deposed in Paragraph 7 of his deposition that it is not true that my Varanda was broken down while making RCC road of Vasad Panchayat. This is the case of the respondents of course the witness has denied that this is the reason as to why he has implicated leaders of the Village in the offence including the Sarpanch – Dineshbhai Manibhai – accused no.10. It is further deposed by him in the same Paragraph 7 that “It is true that when my statement was recorded before the police, I had stated that “the situation was tensed at Vasad so we could not go to Vasad Police Station. Other relatives Sattarbhai Adambhai residing in the same locality has filed complaints in the Court and police.” It is not true that I was not present at Vasad at the time of incident. Other relatives Sattarbhai Adambhai residing in the same locality has filed complaints in the Court and police.” It is not true that I was not present at Vasad at the time of incident. It is not true that I dictated their names because they were leaders of the Village and people of Patel community.” It is, therefore, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the witnesses replied after thinking a lot and he has deposed before the Court for not less than 8 to 10 times that he stated to the police but police did not record the fact and further that, in another case, he has admitted that he had informed the police that he left on 27.02.2002 and returned after 15 days. This shows the falsehood of the evidence of the witness and therefore, entire evidence is not believable. The witness was not in Vasad at the time of incident as admitted by him and therefore, he has falsely implicated and therefore, his testimony is not reliable. 24.10 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel submitted that so far as deposition of PW79 - Sattar Adam Vora, Exh.208 is concerned, he has deposed that incident took place at 01.03.2002 at about 12:30 hrs., whereas, the complainant PW74 - Harisinh Noparam Jat, Exh.195 says that the incident took place at 04:30 p.m. The witness further deposed that when he was at his home with his family members, 10 to 15 people came in that point of time. He has named following persons:- Sr. No. Accused No. Names 1 10 Dineshbhai Manibhai 2 11 Shambhubhai Rameshbhai 3 12 Madhubhai Ramanbhai 4 13 Rakeshbhai Jasbhai 5 14 Narayanbhai Dahyabhai 6 15 Bhaveshbhai Shashikantbhai 7 16 Prafulbhai Lallubhai 8 18 Samirbhai Indubhai 9 19 Munnabhai Naginbhai 10 17 Munnabhai Jitubhai 11 ? Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai 12 23 Kaushikbhai Khushalbhai 13 22? Kaushikbhai contractor of Gram Panchayat 14 ? Bhaveshbhai Bhalabhai 24.11 He has deposed that these people set ablaze the car of Maheboobbhai. They also did robbery of his house. It is stated that therefore, they came out to the back door and left for Borsad from there. He has deposed that I had not gone to the Police Station to give statement and his statement was not recorded even on 01.07.2002. They also did robbery of his house. It is stated that therefore, they came out to the back door and left for Borsad from there. He has deposed that I had not gone to the Police Station to give statement and his statement was not recorded even on 01.07.2002. The Court has made note that the witness identified a person as Madhubhai Ramanbhai who disclosed his name to be Prakashbhai Ramanbhai. Similarly, the witness identified person as Naranbhai Dahyabhai who disclosed his name to be Vimalbhai Dahyabhai. similarly, the witness identified a person as Bhaveshbhai Shashikantbhai. The accused disclosed his name to be Bhaveshbhai Hasmukhbhai. Similarly, the witness identified a person as Munabhai Naginbhai, the accused disclosed his name as Rameshbhai Naginbhai. Similarly, the witness identified a person Munnabhai Naginbhai, the accused disclosed his name as Amarbhai Jitubhai. Similarly, the witness identified a person Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai, the accused disclosed his name to be Hiteshbhai Arvindbhai. Similarly, the witness identified a person Kaushikbhai Gram Panchayat of Contractor, the accused disclosed his name to be Kaushikbhai Mohanbhai. It is further deposed in Paragraph 3 of the deposition that “I have not given names of the people to police earlier at any time whose names I submitted today, but I have submitted names in complaint which I gave in the Court at Anand. He has further deposed in Paragraph 4 of the deposition that “It is true that when the mob came, we all felt fear and left through back side door along with the family. Therefore, I could not see as to who came from Machhiwad and Kumbharwad.” The witness has further deposed in Paragraph 5 that “I had not gone to Borsad Police Station.” Now I state that “I have not given any complaint in the Court. But I have given complaint in the Police Chowky located opposite Old Railway Station.” The witness has admitted that he was interrogated by the police on 26.06.2002, 01.07.2002 and 03.07.2002. The witness has also deposed in Paragraph 5 of his deposition in last portion that “It is true that I have given not given names of any persons before the police or officer at any time after incident before 01.07.2002. The witness has also deposed in Paragraph 5 of his deposition in last portion that “It is true that I have given not given names of any persons before the police or officer at any time after incident before 01.07.2002. It is, therefore, mostly humbly submitted that the witness did not disclose the names of any of the accused during his police statement on 26.06.2002, and thereafter, he improved the story in his further police statement and he has not given any reasons as to why that he did not disclose names of the accused persons at the first opportunity available to him before the police and therefore, he has improved his story and falsely implicated the accused persons subsequently and even though he is permanent resident of Village Vasad, he had identified wrong persons in the Court. 24.12 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel submitted that so far as deposition of PW-80 Adambhai Shabaibhai, Exh.209 is concerned, he has deposed that the mob had come and first set his nephew’s car ablaze, etc. He had not given the date and time of the incident. He has further deposed that he has come out front door of his house along with the family passing through the ravine and went to Borsad and thereafter, he returned after six months. He has named following persons:- Sr. No. Accused No. Names of the accused 1 10 Dineshbhai Manibhai 2 11 Shambhubhai Rameshbhai 3 24 Rameshbhai Shanabhai 4 50 Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Gamechi 5 25 Natubhai Maganbhai 6 26 Hiteshbhai Ramanbhai 7 ? Tinabhai Ramanbhai 8 28 Ashokbhai Bhagwanbhai 24.13 It is noted by the learned Sessions Judge that on being asked to identify, Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Gamechi, the witness is not able to identify any of the accused. The witness has identified Tinabhai Ramanbhai. He disclosed his name to be Sanjaybhai Ramanbhai. The witness has further deposed in cross-examination that “It is true that today, I am stating the facts relating to incident before the Court for the first time.” It is, therefore, submitted that the witness disclosed this information in the Court for the first time as admitted by him. Despite the fact that he had ample opportunity of disclosing these facts to police during various occasions including when his police statement was recorded. Despite the fact that he had ample opportunity of disclosing these facts to police during various occasions including when his police statement was recorded. He has further deposed in his deposition that “the person whom I identified belongs to Vasad Village and they have been residing since years. The mob came moving from four directions and fled as police came. I did not talk with police. I have not given information at Borsad Police Station too.” It is, therefore, submitted that the witness has not disclosed the name of the accused given in the deposition at any point of time before any police officer and therefore, his evidence is not reliable and trustworthy. 24.14 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel submitted that so far as deposition of PW82–Salim Adam, Exh.211 is concerned, he has deposed that the incident occurred at 01.03.2020 at about 12:30 in the morning. The mob was of about 200 people. he has named the following persons:- Sr. No. Accused No. Names of the accused 1 10 Dineshbhai 2 11 Shambhubhai 3 29 Atulbhai 4 32 Rakeshbhai 5 40 Bhaveshbhai 6 50 Ramanbhai 7 30 Bhanubhai 8 ? Naranbhai 9 25 Natubhai 10 ? Melabhai 11 22,23 Kaushikbhai 24.15 He has deposed that he had seen the incident of setting ablaze Indica Car. The accused started pelting stone. He has further deposed that on feeling fear, they went out from the back door with his family members. He has further deposed that he had gone to Anand for lodging a case after 15 days. However, the witness has not produced anything on record that he has filed complaint at Anand. The Court has noted that the witness identified a person as Bhanubhai. The accused disclosed his name to be Bhailalbhai Bhikhabhai. The witness who identified person as Narayanbhai, the accused disclosed his name to be Vimalbhai. He is further deposed in Paragraph 3 of his deposition that his brother Sattrabhai Adambhai got a complaint registered at Anand. The police recorded his statements on 26.06.2002, 01.07.2002, 03.07.2002 and 04.07.2002. He has deposed that “It is not true that the said complaint was given in Anand Court after contacting an advocate.”, which is contradictory to the deposition of his brother – Sattarbhai. He further deposed in Paragraph 4 of his deposition that the police arrived at the time of the incident. He left after the police came. He has deposed that “It is not true that the said complaint was given in Anand Court after contacting an advocate.”, which is contradictory to the deposition of his brother – Sattarbhai. He further deposed in Paragraph 4 of his deposition that the police arrived at the time of the incident. He left after the police came. I did not say anything to the police.” It is, therefore, submitted that the witness did not disclose anything about the incident at the earliest opportunity available to him and thereafter, after about 4 months, he has implicated some of the respondents – accused and identified the accused because he is from the local small Village. The witness has deposed in last portion of Paragraph 4 of his deposition that “It is true that that I have not dictated such facts to the police that too the person whom I identified by 04.07.2002 were setting Indica Car ablaze are the part of the mob.” It is, therefore, submitted that the witness has implicated the respondents – accused at subsequently and he has given detailed accounts of the role of the accused in his deposition, whereas, he did not state anything before the police in his police statement as to role played by the particular accused. 24.16 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel submitted that so far as deposition of PW83 – Samimben Salim Vora, Exh.213 is concerned, she has deposed in the Court that the incident took place at half past 12 on 01.03.2002, whereas the deposition of the complainant, PW74 – Harisinh Noparam Jat, Exh.195, the incident occurred at 04:30 p.m. and thus, there is a basic infirmity and contradictions so far as the time of the incident. It appears that all the witnesses have brought backward the time of the incident so as to claim their presence at the time of the incident with a view to falsely implicate the accused persons. She has deposed that she saw about 100-150 persons who set ablaze the Indica Car and she named following persons:- Sr. No. Accused No. Names 1 10 Dineshbhai – Sarpanch 2 38 Miteshbhai 3 37 Melabhai 4 30 Bhalabhai 24.17 She further deposed that she knew all other persons by face and not by name. She further deposed that she left through back door and went to Borsad via Vasad Railway Track and Borsad Road. No. Accused No. Names 1 10 Dineshbhai – Sarpanch 2 38 Miteshbhai 3 37 Melabhai 4 30 Bhalabhai 24.17 She further deposed that she knew all other persons by face and not by name. She further deposed that she left through back door and went to Borsad via Vasad Railway Track and Borsad Road. She has further deposed in her cross-examination at Paragraph 3 that she stated the same details to the police when asked her which she deposed in the Court but however, the Court has recorded that the witness voluntarily stated that she dictated it but police did not record it. She has deposed that she was present in her house with her husband and parents-in-law and they all left together. She has deposed in Paragraph 4 of her cross-examination that she knew all the persons in the mob because they were from Vasad and she lived in Vasad for many years. She has further deposed that police recorded statements of all of her family members along with her police recorded statement separately. She has deposed in Paragraph 4 that “I came to know that riot has taken place in the Village before 12:00 O’Clock.” It is, therefore, submitted that she even did not know when the incident took place. It appears that she has derived some information about the incident from some other person. She has deposed that “I have not stated any facts to any police officer or before any Court prior to 04.07.2002 after the incident took place.” It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully submitted that the witness remained silent for about 4 months after the incident took place and thereafter, she has implicated some of the persons in her statement and therefore, she did not give name of the accused at the earliest point of time and therefore also, her deposition is not reliable and is required to be rejected. 24.18 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel next submitted that so far as deposition of PW84 – Anwarbhai Yusufbhai Vora, Exh.214 is concerned, he has deposed that he stayed with his family at Vasad and was having a business of Garage and vehicle broker. He has also deposed in his deposition that the incident took place at about 10:00 to 11:00 O’Clock on 01.03.2002. Vijay Patel next submitted that so far as deposition of PW84 – Anwarbhai Yusufbhai Vora, Exh.214 is concerned, he has deposed that he stayed with his family at Vasad and was having a business of Garage and vehicle broker. He has also deposed in his deposition that the incident took place at about 10:00 to 11:00 O’Clock on 01.03.2002. He has deposed that “the incident took place on 01.03.2002 Friday at around 10:00 to 11:00 O’clock, as there was chaos in the Village, we went out to see. When the chaos started, I was at my home. Therefore, we left for Borsad with my wife, my father, mother and son. As chaos, uproar and riots started, we left from there. Thereafter, we returned on the night of that day. I and my brother Ismail returned. We came at my Garage at Vasad. My Garage was situated at Vasad cross roads. However, our vehicles were lying near Garage which we shifted behind the Garage and came home and suddenly, shout was heard “kill–slaught”. As they were such shouts, we climb at our house. We saw from there that Bakabhai, Shambhubhai, G.P. bhai, Ghanshyambhai, owner of Bharat Pulse Mill, Kaushikbhai, Gaurangbhai, Bhurabhai were there...” It is, therefore, submitted that the witness states that the incident took place at about 10:00 to 11:00 in morning and they left for Borsad with all family members and then, he and his brother returned at night and he had seen the incident and implicated the accused. It is, therefore, submitted that the witness talk about the incident of night hours which is not the case of the prosecution and therefore, the entire evidence is not useful to the prosecution. It is further submitted that the said witness has given names of so many persons, but it is of no benefit to the prosecution and therefore, I do not burden my submission by giving names of all accused in my written brief. 24.19 The witness has deposed in Paragraph 3 of the deposition that he had given complaint at Anand and the said complaint was prepared through an advocate and filed in the Anand Court. He has also stated that Vasad police did not record his statement before he gave his complaint. 24.19 The witness has deposed in Paragraph 3 of the deposition that he had given complaint at Anand and the said complaint was prepared through an advocate and filed in the Anand Court. He has also stated that Vasad police did not record his statement before he gave his complaint. He has further deposed in Paragraph 5 of his deposition that “at the time of incident took place at 11:00 o’clock in the night as stated by me I was hidden at the shelf of first floor of my house. The mob arrived in Varanda of my house. We escaped from back side of my house. This shows that this is not the case of the prosecution that the incident took place at night and therefore, his entire evidence is not going to any benefit to the prosecution and therefore, here further evidence of the said evidence is not discussed in detail. 24.20 Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Patel then submitted that so far as evidence of PW-85 Ismailbhai Yusufbhai Vora, Exh.215 is concerned, he has deposed that he was present at his house on the day of the incident on 01.03.2002. He has deposed that his parents, brother – Anwarbhai, his wife – Vahidaben, came to his house at about 01:00 p.m. and told that situation in Vasad was not good and therefore, they locked the house. That, he and his brother went to see his house in Vasad at about 09:30 p.m. and he had seen the mob came there near his house at about 11:00 O’Clock. The witness has given the names of the accused. Their names are not discussed because the case of the prosecution is that the incident took place at 04:30 p.m. whereas this witness deposed about the incident of 11:00 O’clock in night and therefore, no such charge is framed against the accused and therefore, entire evidence including the naming the accused persons is of no consequence so far as the case of the prosecution is concerned. 24.21 Mr. Vijay Patel, learned counsel submitted that the following points are required to be considered:- [i] The witnesses have not disclosed names of the accused to the police. [ii] Some of the witnesses have identified the accused by face, but no T.I. Parade is held by the Investigating Officer. 24.21 Mr. Vijay Patel, learned counsel submitted that the following points are required to be considered:- [i] The witnesses have not disclosed names of the accused to the police. [ii] Some of the witnesses have identified the accused by face, but no T.I. Parade is held by the Investigating Officer. [iii] At the earliest opportunity available to them, some of the accused have given the different time of the incident i.e. 11:30 p.m. [iv] There are contradictions in terms of improvements with respect to witnesses in the evidence and the detailed role of the accused. [v] No complaint filed in the Court about the incident brought on record by the witnesses. [vi] One witness says that he filed the complaint in the Court through the advocate and another witness states that no assistant of advocate was taken. [vii] One of the witness deposed that the members of the mob were also from other Villages. [viii] It is the most humble submission on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the respondents – accused are residents of Village and they were known to each other and even the accused who were from other Village, the witnesses have named them subsequently at the later stage after about 4 months to police which raises strong doubt about the truthfulness of the evidence of the witnesses. Hence, the judgment of the learned Trial Court which is not otherwise required to be disturbed in the case of acquittal. There are two views possible so far as the incident and involvement to accused is concerned and therefore, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is not required to be disturbed. 25. The submissions as advanced by learned counsels for the parties are based upon the testimonies of each of the witnesses referred to above. We have examined and gone through the statements and we find that the factual submissions advanced regarding contents of the statements of each of the witnesses referred to above are borne out from the record and there is nothing which can be said to be contrary to the record. 25.1 The reference made by Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the complainant side, is mainly with regard to examination-in-chief of the witnesses. 25.1 The reference made by Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the complainant side, is mainly with regard to examination-in-chief of the witnesses. If the testimonies given in the examination-in-chief are accepted as they are recorded, then apparently in every case where the prosecution witnesses support the prosecution case, conviction will have to be recorded treating the said examination-in-chief to be wholly true. The opportunity of cross-examination is given to test as to whether the witness is speaking the truth or not and it is only after considering the contents of the cross-examination that the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witnesses is determined. Accordingly what is stated in examination-in-chief is decided as to whether it is worth accepting or not and that too either as a whole or in part. 25.2 Cross-examination is an integral and essential part in a criminal case. The ultimate quest in any judicial determination is to arrive at the truth, which is not possible unless the deposition of witnesses goes through the fire of cross-examination. In a criminal case, using a statement of a witness at the trial, without affording to the accused an opportunity to cross-examine, is tantamount to condemning him unheard. Life and liberty of an individual recognised as the most valuable rights cannot be jeopardised leave alone taken away without conceding to the accused the right to question those deposing against him from the witness box, Sunil Mehta vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 9 SCC 209 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 881. 25.3 The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569 , vide paragraph 278 very succinctly explained the purpose of cross-examination of a witness, which is reproduced hereunder : “278. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross-examination means and Sections 139 and 145 speak of the mode of cross-examination with reference to the documents as well as oral evidence. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross-examination means and Sections 139 and 145 speak of the mode of cross-examination with reference to the documents as well as oral evidence. It is the jurisprudence of law that cross-examination is an acid-test of the truthfulness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination-in-chief, the objects of which are: (1) to destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the witness of his adversary; (2) to elicit facts in favour of the cross-examining lawyer's client from the mouth of the witness of the adversary party; (3) to show that the witness is unworthy of belief by impeaching the credit of the said witness; and the questions to be addressed in the course of cross-examination are to test his veracity; to discover who he is and what is his position in life; and to shake his credit by injuring his character.” On the above principles if we test the evidence of all the wittinesses of fact alleging themselves to be eyewitnesses what they have been able to prove is that the incident took place but they have not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any of the accused was present. 26 In the present case, what we find is that the reference to the portions of the cross-examination made by Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the accused, are borne out from the record and if that is taken to be correct, then the credibility and reliability of all these witnesses appears doubtful. The reasons for the same are given hereunder: [1] None of the witnesses lodged any complaint or report at any stage either with the police or with the Magistrate. No explanation has been given for the same. It is not the case of any of these witnesses that they made an attempt to lodge FIR or that they approached the senior police officers or approached the Magistrate with their complaint. [2] These witnesses have taken few names in their examination-in-chief. 3 to 4 names are common to all the witnesses, whereas a couple of them have taken some additional names. Interestingly, in their statements to the police which were recorded on more than one occasion, none of these witnesses took the names of any of these accused and it is only during the trial that in the examination-in-chief they have taken these names. Interestingly, in their statements to the police which were recorded on more than one occasion, none of these witnesses took the names of any of these accused and it is only during the trial that in the examination-in-chief they have taken these names. Not one name was taken by these witnesses during investigation. [3] The submissions of Mr. Brahmbhatt that these witnesses were honest and truthful as they admitted that they had never taken these names while giving their statements before the police and as such it should be taken that they are truthful and it is not a case of false implication. Therefore, he submits that their statements of identifying these witnesses during the trial and taking their names should be accepted and accordingly conviction should be recorded. [4] Mr. Brahmbhatt forgets that such truthfulness may have a flip side also. It is not the case of any of these witnesses that they had taken these names before the police, but the police did not record or incorporate their statements correctly during the investigation. Further, the names of 3 to 4 persons are common to most of the witnesses who are politically and financially influential persons of the village. No explanation has been given for not taking their names earlier. [5] The submission of Mr. Patel is that deliberately at such a late stage during the trial the names of politically and financially influential persons of the village have been taken for the first time only for malafide reasons to implicate them falsely. The trial Judge has rightly extended benefit of doubt to the accused while recording acquittal. [6] One more reason for not placing reliance of any of these witnesses is that they have not been able to correctly identify the accused during the trial before the Court. X has been identified as Y, Y has been identified as Z and Z has been identified as X. All these inconsistencies, inaccuracies, discrepancies and improvements as pointed out by Mr. Patel and as borne out from the records has substance and creates a doubt regarding the credibility and reliability of the so-called eye witnesses in proving the presence of any of the accused at the time of the incident. The said inconsistencies, inaccuracies and the contradictions have been noticed by the learned trial Judge also. Patel and as borne out from the records has substance and creates a doubt regarding the credibility and reliability of the so-called eye witnesses in proving the presence of any of the accused at the time of the incident. The said inconsistencies, inaccuracies and the contradictions have been noticed by the learned trial Judge also. We thus do not find any fault with the judgment of the trial Court recording acquittal. 27. Therefore, for all the reasons recorded above, the appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Misc. Applications stand disposed of.