JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.11.2014 rendered by the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur (for short, 'the trial Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504, and 506 r/w Section 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant/State seeking the intervention of this Court on various grounds urged in this appeal and thereby seeks to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and prays to allow the appeal and to convict the respondents/accused for the aforesaid offences. 2. Heard Sri Prakash Yeli, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, and perused the entire material available on record. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under; It transpires from the prosecution case that, accused No.1-Ningappa S/o Amarappa Balabatti was suspected that P.W.1-Yallaling was having illegal intimacy with his wife. In this background on 28.11.2012 at about 10.00 a.m. when P.W.1-Yallaling Hulagappa Biradar, P.W.2-Mallappa Handral, P.W.-3-Shankrappa, and P.W-4-Mallamma were passing through the land of one Gurubhimarao Hanamantraya Kulkarni situated at Advi Hulagbal village, all the accused formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the murder of Yallalinga, came armed with deadly weapons viz., axe, sticks and stones and accused No.2 assaulted P.W.2-Mallappa on his right foot with the stick. Accused No.1 assaulted with an axe on the head, left leg, trunk, face, and other parts of the body of P.W.1 with an intent to commit his murder. When C.W.9-Shankreppa came to the rescue, accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted him with an axe and stick, and accused No.5 assaulted C.W.10-Mallamma with a stone on her thumb and abused them in filthy language and also extended life threat to the complainant-Hanamanth Handral who is examined as P.W.5. Based upon the complaint, the case in Crime No.175/2012 is registered by Talikoti P.S. for the aforesaid offences. 4. After registration of the case, the investigating officer, after investigation laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal court. 5. After receipt of the charge sheet, the committal Court passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by supplying the charge sheet and other materials, and the case is committed to Sessions Court which culminated into the registration of in S.C.No.125/2013. 6. 5. After receipt of the charge sheet, the committal Court passed an order as contemplated under Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. by supplying the charge sheet and other materials, and the case is committed to Sessions Court which culminated into the registration of in S.C.No.125/2013. 6. After committal of the case, the trial court heard the arguments of both the learned Public Prosecutor and also the defence counsel relating to the framing of charges and since there were grounds to proceed against the accused, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked 12 documents at Exs.P.1 to 12 and got marked 9 material objects as M.Os.1 to 9. 8. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused have denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution witnesses. 9. After the recording of the 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused were called upon to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused did not come forward to lead any defence evidence. 10. After the closure of the evidence of both sides, and hearing the counsel appearing for the State and the accused, on appreciation of the evidence the trial court rendered acquittal judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds. 11. It is contended by learned Addl. The accused did not come forward to lead any defence evidence. 10. After the closure of the evidence of both sides, and hearing the counsel appearing for the State and the accused, on appreciation of the evidence the trial court rendered acquittal judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds. 11. It is contended by learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for appellant/State referring the evidence of P.W.1 who has deposed in detail about the averments made in complaint at Ex.P.1, but the trial Court has not considered the evidence of P.W.1 and whereby P.W.1 has specifically stated that accused No.1-Ningappa S/o Amarappa Balabatti assaulted him with means of the axe on his head and leg as a result of that he sustained bleeding injuries and he has also identified the material objects which were used by the accused to assault him and he has also further stated that accused No.2-Hanumanth, who assaulted P.W.2 with means of stick on his head and also on the part of the leg as well as knee trunk part, accused No.4 assaulted P.W.3 with means of the axe on his head and he has further stated that accused No.5 assaulted P.W.4-Mallamma with means of stone on her left hand, whereas P.W.2 also stated clearly in his evidence by reiterating the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the overt acts attributed against the accused. But, the trial Court rendered acquittal judgment and therefore it is requested for reappreciation of evidence on record, if not re-appreciated the evidence and also revisiting the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court, certainly there shall be some miscarriage of justice would cause to the case of the prosecution. 12. The second limb of the argument advanced by learned Additional State Public Prosecutor by referring to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 that they categorically stated in their evidence that when they tried to rescue the injured, they were also assaulted by accused Nos.3 to 5 assaulted these witnesses, however, their evidence has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court who are injured, eyewitnesses. 13. P.W.6-Siddappa who is an eyewitness to the incident supported the case of the prosecution and his evidence is corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 relating to the averments made in the complaint. 14. 13. P.W.6-Siddappa who is an eyewitness to the incident supported the case of the prosecution and his evidence is corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 relating to the averments made in the complaint. 14. P.W.5-Hanamanth, who is the complainant, and P.W.10 who is the panch witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution relating to the averments made in the complaint at Ex.P.1. P.W.13 is the medical officer who was subjected to examination and given treatment to P.Ws.1 to 4 and issued wound certificate at Exs.P.6 to 9 and the evidence of P.W.13 has been found corroborated with the aforesaid evidence leading to infliction of injuries. However, the reasons assigned by the trial Court are not justifiable despite the aforesaid witnesses being supported in the case of the prosecution and also putting forth the evidence relating to the accused having committed the alleged offences. But the trial Court misdirected and misread the evidence of the prosecution. 15. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor further contended relating to the motive factors alleged by the prosecution when the prosecution is supported by facilitating the worthwhile evidence of the injured witnesses and their evidence corroborated with the evidence of P.W.13 and if the case of the prosecution is viewed from any angle even by making scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution has been proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but the trial Court rendered acquittal judgment which is contrary to the evidence. Therefore, this appeal requires for re-appreciation of the evidence and reversal of the judgment of the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial Court in SC No.125/2013 dated 25.11.2014 and to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 16. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri R.S. Lagali for the respondent/accused has taken us through the evidence of P.W.1-Yallaling who as per the theory of the prosecution is the injured witness and who is said to be the cause for the incident since the accused No.1 suspected that he had illicit affair with the wife of the accused No.1. Therefore, on 28.11.2012, he along with P.W.2 to P.W.4 were proceeding to the house, the accused persons assaulted him, P.W.2 to 4 with the help of an ax, sticks, and stone. Therefore, on 28.11.2012, he along with P.W.2 to P.W.4 were proceeding to the house, the accused persons assaulted him, P.W.2 to 4 with the help of an ax, sticks, and stone. But the trial Court has disbelieved his evidence as they have stated in his evidence with exaggerated, embellished, and not trustworthy. 17. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.13, but the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the injuries sustained by him and P.W.2 being the relatives of the P.W.1, who is an injured witness and also complainant alleging that the accused have assaulted him and also the injured P.Ws.3 and 4 with means of axe and sticks and this witness also stated in his evidence appears to be exaggerated and also embellishment and not trustworthy. P.W.3 who is also injured and also being the paternal uncle of P.W.1, even though evidence has been adduced on the part of the prosecution alleging that the accused had assaulted and also assaulted P.Ws.1, 2, and 4 with means of axe and stick and this witness has also stated with exaggerated and embellishment and not trustworthy found in their evidence itself. 18. P.W.4 who is also an injured witness and is none other than the wife of P.W.3 and she along with P.Ws.1 to 3 were proceeding while they were near the land of Gurubhimrao from their house and when this witness rushed to rescue the complainant from the hands of the accused, at that time accused assaulted her and also assaulted P.W.1 to 3 with means of an ax, sticks, and stone. But the trial Court has disbelieved her evidence as exaggerated and also embellishment and not being trustworthy, the same can be seen in their evidence itself. Therefore, their evidence was founded to be clouds and also not reposing the confidence of the Court and in respect of the injuries found at Exs.P.6 to 9 issued by the doctor P.W.13. 19. P.W.5 who is the complainant and based upon his complaint criminal law was set into motion. P.W.2 Mallappa is the son who came after the incident and informed him and based upon his information he has complained, but the trial court has held that evidence of this witness does not further the case of the prosecution and the same can be seen in his evidence itself inclusive of the cross-examination. 20. P.W.2 Mallappa is the son who came after the incident and informed him and based upon his information he has complained, but the trial court has held that evidence of this witness does not further the case of the prosecution and the same can be seen in his evidence itself inclusive of the cross-examination. 20. P.W.6-Siddappa wherein he has stated in his evidence that P.W.2-Mallappa came and informed this witness about the assault by the accused and he along with P.W.7-Siddayya went and rescued P.Ws.1, 3, and 4 and the accused fled the place. But the trial court has held that he was not an eyewitness and he has disbelieved his evidence which is also to be exaggerated and embellished. 21. Similarly, P.W.7-Siddayya deposed in his evidence that P.W.2-Mallappa came and informed him about the assault by the accused and he along with P.W.6 went and found that P.Ws.1, 3, and 4 had fallen due to injuries. But the trial Court has held that the evidence of this witness does not further the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused persons. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination by the defence. However, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence. 22. P.W.8 who has been secured as panch witness relating to the spot mahazar which was drawn in his presence by the investigating officer, but he has stated in his evidence that he does not know the contents made in the spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 even though this witness has been turned hostile and thereafter subjected to cross-examination nothing worthwhile has been elicited in respect of the fulcrum of the mahazar at Ex.P.2 drawn by the investigating officer. 23. P.W.9-Basalingappa wherein he has stated that P.W.2 is his brother off him and he being hearsay witness, this witness shifted the injured P.Ws.1 to 4 to Government Hospital, Muddebihal in an Ambulance and later to Government Hospital, Vijayapura for higher treatment. This witness showed the place of the scene of the crime and accordingly drew the spot mahazar and also photo was subjected during the drawing of panchanama. The trial Court has held that the evidence of this witness does not further the case of the prosecution. 24. This witness showed the place of the scene of the crime and accordingly drew the spot mahazar and also photo was subjected during the drawing of panchanama. The trial Court has held that the evidence of this witness does not further the case of the prosecution. 24. P.W.10-Muttanna who is a panch witness secured by the investigating to draw the recovery panchanama and whereby he has stated in his evidence that accused No.1 who led the investigating officer relating to seizure of M.Os.2 to 6 and also subjected to photos during the mahazar. 25. P.W.11-Santosh Chidanand Badiger who is one of the co-panchas and whereby he has stated in his evidence that he has subscribed his signature at Ex.P.4. But this witness does not support the case of the prosecution and even in the cross-examination nothing worthwhile has been elicited in his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 runs contrary to the contents of Ex.P.4 -Recovery mahazar drawn by the investigating officer during the investigation. 26. P.W.12 who is a co-panch witness at Ex.P.12 and whereby he has stated in his evidence that the spot mahazar has been drawn by the investigating agency at the instances of P.W.9-Basalingappa and seizure of sticks two in numbers and a stone from the spot which was laying. But on scrutiny of these witnesses even coupled with the evidence of P.W.13 who was the doctor subjected the injured P.Ws.1 to 4 and issued a wound certificate at Exs.P.6 to 9. But the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.13 and also there was a suggestion given that if a person fell from an elevated place, the injuries as mentioned at Exs.P.6 to 9 could be possible. But the allegation made against the accused is that there is an illicit relationship between the wife of accused No.1 and the P.W.1 but to prove the motive factor, there is only the allegation that independent witnesses, given their evidence in support of the case of the prosecution, but it is only information rendered that there was no authenticate evidence on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt over the persons who are being elderly persons. But P.W.1 having illicit relation in between P.W.1 and one Shantawwa being the wife of accused No.1 that the motive factors is a weak piece of material and there is no adequate evidence in the absence of the strong proof and mere allegation did not take the place of proof and the trial Court has appreciated and even the evidence has been put forth by the prosecution even the injured witnesses spoken in their evidence about injuries sustained by them and also under such circumstances case only regarding an injury sustained by P.W.2 that too on forearm does not fall under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. But the prosecution has to discharge its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but on scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and even their being injured witnesses and even their evidence is not corroborated. Under these circumstances, the trial Court held that the prosecution does not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and consequently, the trial Court rendered the acquittal judgment as the prosecution was not facilitated the court by producing positive, consistent, and corroborative evidence relating to conviction for the offences which accused are charge-sheeted. On these grounds, learned counsel for the accused seeks for dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merits. 27. It is in this context of the contention, it is deemed appropriate to refer to the evidence of P.W.5 in respect of the averments made in the Ex.P.1, and based upon the complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR at Ex.P.10. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, and 4 are the injured witnesses and P.W.13 is the doctor who issued the wound certificate as per Exs.P6 to 9. In the present appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal, it is relevant to note that the scope of the ambit of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. should not be likely interfered with even after the Court believes that there is pointing towards the Court. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali Vs. This issue has been extensively addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2020 SAR (Cri) 1122, whereas in the aforesaid case it is held that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under the appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court renders an order of acquittal. 28. Whereas, in the instant case P.Ws.1 to 4 being the inured witnesses, their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.13 being the doctor. Insofar as Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act relates to the circumstances evidence, the appreciation of the evidence even taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none other than else. But the absence of proving the motive even cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. But at the same time absence of motive in a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence is a factor and that evidence has to be waived keeping in view the evidence has been facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Whereas in the instant case P.W.1-Yallaling had some illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1, but for that reason alleged accused have unlawfully assembled by holding the deadly weapons and assaulted the injured P.W.1 and also P.W.2. But when P.Ws.3 and 4 tried to pacify the quarrel and rescue P.W.1, the accused assaulted them also and caused infliction of the injuries. 29. Whereas, in the instant case, it is required to be noted that if the case of reversal of acquittal the first and foremost thing which is required to be considered is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court whereby there was proximity wherein the entire case of the prosecution has been appreciated by the trial Court and also come to the conclusion that the prosecution was miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. 30. 30. There is a settled position of law by issuing guidelines relating to interference with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, but the trial court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. But the prosecution has a domain to prove the case against the accused by facilitating the worthwhile evidence and also giving proper weight and consideration to such matters as the views of the trial Court and the credibility of the witnesses. The High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. 31. Even though the appellate Court has absolute 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 the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its 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 the extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (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 the extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more like ‘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 conclusion. 32. It is a settled position of law on the issue which can be summarized to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence – Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided unless there are good reasons for interference. 33. Whereas, in the instant case M.Os.1 to 4 have been subjected to seizure by the investigating officer during the investigation. Even P.Ws.1 to 4 being the material witnesses have been examined on the part of the prosecution. But on scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and even in the evidence of P.W.7-Siddayya has stated that when he went to the land of Gurubhimrao Kulkarni, he did not see any accused. Only on the information given by P.Ws.1 to 4, did he comes to know that the accused persons have assaulted with axes, sticks, and stones. But P.W.8 Muttappa turned hostile in respect of drawing spot mahazar at Ex.P.2. But, P.W.9-Basalingappa Handrail supported the drawing of spot mahazar at Ex.P.2 and identified his signature, and showed the place of the offence. But he contradicts M.Os.3 and 4 as they are jail sticks and not green sticks. P.W.10-Muttanna who is a panch witness has been secured relating to the seizure of Mazhar at Ex.P.4. But P.W.11-Santosh who has been secured as panch witness to Ex.P.4 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 34. But he contradicts M.Os.3 and 4 as they are jail sticks and not green sticks. P.W.10-Muttanna who is a panch witness has been secured relating to the seizure of Mazhar at Ex.P.4. But P.W.11-Santosh who has been secured as panch witness to Ex.P.4 turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 34. At a cursory glance of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of P.W.13, the motive factor has not been established by the prosecution even the injured being an eyewitness have spoken exaggeratedly about their injuries, and under such circumstances, the case only regarding an injury sustained by P.W.2 that too on forearm does not fall under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. When the medical evidence is in contradiction because injuries even can be possible from falling from the height of a hard substance, even in the absence of sharp edge injury with an axe as recovered under the panchanama. 35. P.W.14 is the investigating officer who has done a thorough investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. But viewed from any angle in respect of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with the evidence of P.W.13 being the doctor and also the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11, injuries did not corroborate with the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 the injury of assault from axe itself is doubtful. When there is no linking chain of circumstances from the account of eyewitnesses’ statements, quite obviously the prosecution has failed to prove all the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt and even the prosecution does not facilitate the worthwhile evidence relating to the infliction of each one of the offences lugged against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also required to be noted that P.W.1 is aged about 18 years old and deserted the wife of accused No.1 who is aged about 30 years. Even then when this is the factual ground and the prosecution does not give any further evidence about P.W.1 and the deserted wife of accused No.1 coming closer to each other by developing illicit intimacy. Even under these circumstances also and so also in a totality of the evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. Even under these circumstances also and so also in a totality of the evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused by facilitating worthwhile evidence. The trial court has appreciated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and also the evidence of P.W.13 and concluded that the prosecution even did not prove the medical evidence and corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. Therefore, in the instant case, it is relevant to refer to the judgment in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Superintendent and another reported in AIR 1989 SC 2134 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of an appellate court to review the appeal against the acquittal is as extensive as its power in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Therefore, in the instant appeal it is opined that the prosecution has miserably failed to facilitate worthwhile evidence by a positive, consistent and cogent probably sing that the accused have committed the offences and there is no perverse or absurdity and infirmities found in the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial court and more so, the trial court has rightly come to the conclusion holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and rendered the acquittal judgment. Therefore, it is said that the appeals deserve to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER The appeal preferred by the State under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the judgment dated 25.11.2014 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur in S.C.No.125/2013 acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504, and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC are hereby confirmed.