JUDGMENT : Birendra Kumar, J. - Appellants Mohammad Shariff and Nawab Ali faced trial in Sessions Case No. 57/2002 arising out of FIR No. 254/1999 registered with Sadar Jhunjhunu Police Station for offences under Section 450, 307 and 323/34 IPC. By the impugned judgment dated 8.8.2003, the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 307, 307/34 and 450 IPC, however convicted them for offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of three years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine two months imprisonment. The appellants were convicted for offence under Section 451 IPC and sentenced to six months imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, 7 days imprisonment was ordered. 2. In Criminal Appeal No. 1244/2003, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction especially have questioned the correctness of sentence on the ground that there was no previous conviction of the appellants, hence they should have been allowed the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act unless the trial court records special reason for not treating the appellants under the aforesaid Act. 3. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 1345/2003 (supra), the informant of the case has challenged acquittal of the appellants under Section 307, 307/34 and 450 IPC. 4. The prosecution case is that on 13.12.1999 at about 9.00 PM both the appellants armed with lathi came to the house of the informant and allegedly assaulted to Abdul Hakim (PW/6), the son of the informant. The incident took place for the reason of flowing drain waters and digging drains by the side of the house of the informant. Both the parties are neighbour. Appellant Nawab Ali allegedly caused injury at the head of Abdul Hakim with Dhariya, a sharp edged weapon with intent to commit murder. Appellant Mohd. Shariff assaulted with Barchi causing injury near the eyes of Abdul Hakim. 5. The informant PW/1 Kurda Khan is not an eye-witness of the incident. He reported the matter to the police what he had learnt from PW/4 Smt. Rajia, the wife of the informant PW/1. 6. The prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses, out of which PW/2 Samshad Ali, PW/7 Abrar, PW/8 Sabbir Hussain, PW/9 Rafiq, PW/10, Khadim & PW/11 Hafisan Bano have turned hostile. PW/12 Abbas Ahmad is a police officer who registered the FIR. 6. The prosecution examined altogether 14 witnesses, out of which PW/2 Samshad Ali, PW/7 Abrar, PW/8 Sabbir Hussain, PW/9 Rafiq, PW/10, Khadim & PW/11 Hafisan Bano have turned hostile. PW/12 Abbas Ahmad is a police officer who registered the FIR. PW/13 Sadiq Khan is also a police officer who had conducted the seizure etc. PW/14 Umesh Singh is the Investigating officer of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Ashvin Garg contends that there is serious contradiction in material particulars in the evidence of PW/1 Kurda Khan, PW/4 Smt. Rajia and PW/5 Aslam and PW/6 Abdul Hakim who are sons of the informant Kurda Khan. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that the radiologist of the case was not produced nor the Doctor who had operated the injured and submitted post-operation report was examined by the prosecution. The aforesaid two opinions are basis of conclusion of PW/3 Dr. J.P. Bugalia that the injuries were dangerous to life. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena in Cr. Revision contends that the learned trial Judge has committed error of appreciation of evidence and wrongly came to the conclusion that since the appellants were carrying lathi, they had no intention to committed murder whereas the prosecution evidence was clear that at least the appellants had knowledge while committing injury on the head that their act might cause death, therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC was attracted and conviction ought to have been recorded under Section 307 IPC. 9. PW/1 Kurda Khan is not consistent with the First Information Report to the extent of weapon used. As he stated in the Court that Nawab Ali had assaulted with lathi to Abdul Hakim thereafter Abdul Hakim fell down and then Mohammad Sariff assaulted with lathi causing injury near the eyes. The injured became unconsciousness and he gained consciousness only in the hospital. PW/4 Smt. Rajia and PW/5 Aslam who were present at the time of incident and were accompanying the injured to the hospital have stated that the injured was throughout conscious and had never gone unconscious whereas PW/6 Abdul Hakim stated that he was unconscious and gained consciousness in the hospital. The aforesaid contradiction creates doubt on the presence of so called eye-witnesses. The aforesaid contradiction creates doubt on the presence of so called eye-witnesses. Further PW/4 Smt. Rajia, PW/5 Aslam and PW/6 Abdul Hakim are specific that only Nawab Ali had caused injury with lathi at the head and attempt of Mohd. Shariff did not touch the body of the injured. PW/5 Aslam deposed that only when PW/1 came to the house, the injured was taken to the hospital and till then he was lying at the place of incident whereas PW/1 Kurda Khan stated that he met the injured for the first time in the hospital itself. Besides the aforesaid contradictions, there is lapses on the part of the prosecution in not examining the radiologist who had conducted X-ray and procured the X-ray plate and could have been the best witness to state what he found in the x-ray report and the accused would have got opportunity to cross-examine the real expert. Likewise, the Doctor who had performed the operation of Abdul Hakim and submitted post operation report was also not produced by the prosecution. The non production creates serious doubt on acceptance of medical opinion of PW/3 Dr. J.P. Bugalia regarding nature of injuries found, therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC or 307/34 was not warranted and the trial court has correctly recorded the judgment of acquittal. 10. The prosecution evidence establishes a case of house trespass and causing hurt. In the circumstance, the learned trial court ought to have looked into the application of law under the Probation of Offenders Act and if the trial court was of the view that the case of the accused was not fit to be dealt with under the aforesaid Act, it should have recorded special reasons for not allowing the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as required under Section 361 Cr.P.C. After such a long gap, no purpose would be served by allowing the convicts to go free after executing a bond to keep peace and tranquillity, therefore, the sentence awarded stands reduced to the period already undergone. 11. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal above stands partly allowed and partly dismissed. 12. So far as scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is concerned, the law has been settled by a catena of decisions. 11. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal above stands partly allowed and partly dismissed. 12. So far as scope of interference with the judgment of acquittal is concerned, the law has been settled by a catena of decisions. In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated in Para 16 as under:- "16. ....while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with commission of the crime he is charged with." 13. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Supreme Court stated in Para 42: "42. ....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, 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." 14. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated in the case of Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 536 . 15. As noticed above, on the facts of the case, no two views are possible. Even if it is assumed that another probable view was there contrary to the judgment of the trial Judge, the judgment of acquittal could not have been interfered with. 16. Therefore, Criminal Revision Petition (supra), stands dismissed.