ORDER : Anand Pathak, J. 1. This is an application by State seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 28-05-2020 passed by Third Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri whereby the respondents/accused, namely, Dharmendra alias Lallu Rawat, Narendra Singh Rawat, Ummed Singh Rawat, Manu alias Man Singh and Aparval Rawat, have been acquitted by the trial Court in S.T. No. 301/2014 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 364 (two counts), 302 read with 302/149 (two counts) and 201 (III) (two counts) of IPC. 2. As per the case of prosecution, on 26-08-2014 complainant Rameshwar (PW-11) went to Shivpuri to purchase Distribution Panel (D.P.) by tractor and deceased Karan Singh and Sanjay Rawat also reached to Shivpuri on a motorcycle. Thereafter, complainant Rameshwar left to his village with the said D.P. and both the deceased stayed there to purchase wire for the D.P. and thereafter, in the way, they overtook the complainant's tractor near Piparsaman village. 3. It is further alleged that when complainant Rameshwar (PW-11) reached near Chentawar bridge, he saw that one Indica Car driven by one of the accused, namely, Dharmendra dashed the motorcycle of the deceased due to which they fall down, thereafter accused persons wielding sticks and iron rods, came out from the car and opened blows of the sticks and iron rods. Due to fear, complainant Rameshwar (PW-11) rushed to his village and informed the family members but the accused persons took the deceased persons along with them in the said car. Thereafter, on search, dead bodies were recovered from the field of Kanhaiyalal at 10-11 pm in the night. 4. FIR was lodged on 27-08-2014 at about 5:15 am. Thereafter investigation started, relevant articles were seized by police from the spot and dead bodies were sent for post mortem and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court of law and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Shivpuri. 5. Before the trial Court, points for consideration were whether the death of deceased persons namely, Karan Singh and Sanjay Rawat was homicidal in nature or not and whether the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly on 26-08-2014 at 6-7 pm, committed murder of Karan Singh and Sanjay Rawat. After considering the relevant documents and evidence in this regard, trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused. After considering the relevant documents and evidence in this regard, trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused. Therefore, this leave to appeal has been preferred along with appeal memo so as to challenge the order of acquittal. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant/State that Dr. Neetraj Gaur (PW-16) performed the autopsy of the deceased persons vide Ex-P/33 and P/34 and he described the injuries sustained by both the deceased. According to him, they sustained injuries on vital parts of the body and due to excessive bleeding they succumbed to the injuries. Further he opined about nature of death that it is homicidal in nature. Thus, the trial Court erred in not giving weightage to the evidence of this witness. Complainant Rameshwar (PW-11) who was the sole eye-witness of the incident remained firm and duly supported the story of prosecution. Version of complainant was duly supported by Halke alias Shivnararyan (PW-1) that Rameshwar (PW-11) and deceased persons had gone to Shivpuri to purchase D.P. and when the deceased persons were returning on a motorcycle, their motorcycle was dashed by Indica car and they were beaten by sticks and iron rods, therefore they succumbed to the injuries. It is further submitted that other material prosecution witnesses have also supported the story of prosecution. Thus, prayed that the trial Court erred in recording acquittal in favour of accused persons and caused illegality. 7. Heard counsel for the applicant/State and record perused. 8. Through this application applicant/State is seeking leave to appeal. The case in hand pertains to double murder but the fact remains that whether the death was homicidal in nature or not. In this regard, Dr. Neetraj Gaur (PW-16) who performed autopsy of both the deceased persons, is having material bearing. The said witness in his cross-examination categorically admitted that the injuries sustained by both the deceased may be caused in a road accident. Further on specific query asked by the Presiding Officer that why in the post mortem report, nature of death was mentioned by him as homicidal, in turn, the said witness stated that since the constable Shaitan Singh who came with the requisition memo stated that it is a matter of murder, therefore, he mentioned the nature of death as homicidal in nature. Further, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased particularly one burn injury, takes the case to different perception i.e. accidental in nature. Further, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased particularly one burn injury, takes the case to different perception i.e. accidental in nature. Thus, the trial Court did not commit any error in reaching to the conclusion that the nature of death was not homicidal in nature. 9. The car which was allegedly used in the incident belonged to one Rajkumar Sharma (PW-12) who in his statement categorically deposed that he did not know the accused Dharmendra (who allegedly shown to be the driver of the said car) and further stated that due to breakdown of said car (Tata Vista), he left it near Adiwasi Basti, Rajgarh and thereafter since the said car was seized by the police, therefore, he took the said car on Supurdaginama from the trial Court. He further denied the factum of knowledge of the incident. Kanhaiyalal (PW-7) in whose field, dead bodies of the deceased persons were recovered also do not support the story of prosecution and turned hostile. 10. The trial Court after taking into consideration all the documentary as well as oral evidence has rightly come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that a person (complainant) whose son and brother were being beaten by some persons with the help of sticks and iron rods and he rushed to his house because of fear and did not raise alarm midway. Ramsakhi (PW-4) who was also projected by the prosecution as eye-witness, in her cross-examination did not support the factum of dashing the motorcycle of deceased persons by car. Chemical analyst Assistant Sub Inspector Nasir Husain (PW-10) after examination of vehicles in question, opined that the accidental marks over the motorcycle and car may be caused intentionally. Further FSL report Ex-P/42 also do not corroborate with the prosecution story of dashing of motorcycle by car and beating the deceased persons with sticks and iron rods. 11. Guddi Bai (PW-2), Hakim (PW-3), Bharat Singh (PW-5), Kanhaiyalal (PW-7) from whose field dead bodies were recovered as well as Rajkumar (PW-12) the car owner, all; did not support the story of prosecution and declared hostile. There are material omissions and discrepancies exist in the statements of witnesses. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that nature of death was homicidal in nature and the accused persons on the fateful day committed murder of the deceased namely, Karan Singh and Sanjay Rawat. 12. There are material omissions and discrepancies exist in the statements of witnesses. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that nature of death was homicidal in nature and the accused persons on the fateful day committed murder of the deceased namely, Karan Singh and Sanjay Rawat. 12. It is oft repeated that graver the charge is, greater should be the proof required, to bring home the analogy that till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing the accused does not arise. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the necessary contours of the controversy and thereafter passed a reasoned judgment recording acquittal in favour of accused persons. 13. It is settled principle of law that if the trial Court after due appreciation of the evidence comes to the conclusion about the finding of acquittal then normally if the finding is not perverse, this should not be interfered with by the Appellate Court. For this, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka 2007 AIR SCW 1850, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the legal principles to entertain the appeal against acquittal and held as under:- "39. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate 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 question 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. 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. 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". 14. In the case of Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 589 , wherein it is observed as under:- "It is open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and conclusions drawn by the trial Court but only in a case when the judgment of the trial court is stated to be perverse. The word "perverse" to mean "against the weight of evidence". 15. Trial Court has considered all the aspects in detail and after considering all the material evidence in this regard found the case of prosecution as doubtful. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 and T. Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 held that if two views are possible and one view is taken by the trial Court after due appreciation of evidence including the demeanor of witnesses then unless sheer perversity or illegality crept in to the judgment of trial Court scope of interference in appeal is limited. 16. Considering the same, it appears that no case for interference is made out. Therefore, leave is declined and accordingly the application is hereby dismissed. Judgment dated 28-05-2020 of trial Court stands affirmed. 17. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.