JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGA for the appellant and Shri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties. 2. The accused-opposite party no.2, namely, Mohan Swarup has died and the appeal qua the accused-opposite party no.2, Mohan Swarup was abated by order dated 30.09.2021. Thus, this Government Appeal survives only against the accused-opposite party no.1, Ram Prakash son of Mohan Lal, accused-opposite party no.3, Jagdish son of Janak Singh and accused-opposite party no.4, Shishpal son of Tilak Singh, all residents of Village-Budhaich, P.S.- Sahpau, District- Mathura. Facts: 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the deceased-Rishal Singh was shot dead by fire arms in the night of 12/13.04.1985 at about 00:30 hours while he was sleeping on a cot at the barn in the Village-Budhaich. A First Information Report being Case Crime No.58 of 1985 under Section 302/34 I.P.C., P.S.-Sahpau, District- Mathura was lodged at 1:25 A.M. on 13.04.1985 by the eye witness P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh) son of Geetam Singh, Village-Budhaich, P.S.-Sahpau, District-Mathura, who is the nephew of the deceased-Rishal Singh. In the aforesaid promptly lodged F.I.R., the informant P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh) has imputed the motive and named the accused persons, who according to the F.I.R. version, have killed his uncle Rishal Singh by causing fire arm injuries. As per F.I.R. version, the accused-Ram Prakash son of Mohan Lal armed with gun, Jagdish son of Janak Singh armed with Pauna gun, Mohan Swarup son of Durveen Singh armed with country made pistol and Shishpal Singh son of Tilak Singh armed with lathi came and the aforesaid three accused persons armed with fire arm weapons fired at the deceased-Rishal Singh from a very close distance resulting in his death. As per F.I.R. version, the informant eye witness P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh) and his companion, P.W.-2 (Ram Vilas) had seen the accused persons in the light of a torch, which the P.W.-1 was having with him and a lantern, which was burning and kept beside the deceased-Rishal Singh. A recovery memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the same day showing recovery of the torch with four cells and the lamp (lantern). Another recovery memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the same day taking samples of earth and the blood found on the spot in two separate containers, which were sealed at the spot. A recovery memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the same day showing recovery of the torch with four cells and the lamp (lantern). Another recovery memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer on the same day taking samples of earth and the blood found on the spot in two separate containers, which were sealed at the spot. Third recovery memo recovering two empty cartridges of 12 bore and one empty cartridge of 315 bore of brass were recovered from the spot and were sealed. Fourth recovery memo on the same day was prepared by the Investigating Officer for recovery of bedsheet and parts of the cot etc, which were also sealed. Fifth recovery memo of the cot and supurdginama was also prepared on the same day. All these recovery memos bear the signature of witnesses, who were present including the P.W.-5 (Dhan Singh) and informant P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh). Autopsy on the body of the deceased-Rishal Singh was conducted by Dr. Arvind Kumar, who opined the cause of death to be coma due to ante mortem injuries. Following ante mortem injuries were found by the doctor, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased: “1. Firearm wound of entry 3.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side angle of the mouth and broken right upper jaw. 5 teeth inciser to premolars broken and missing smoke powder present on the left side mouth and nose in an area of 10 x 6 cm the direction of fire is left side mouth to right side mouth with inverted and lacerated margins. 2. Firearm wound of entry 2 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on the right neck and lies 6.5 cm below right ear with blackening around the wound. The margins are inverted and lacerated the direction is right to left and upwards. 3. Firearm wound of exit 7 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the left side ear and upper margins and upper part of neck and brain matter and multiple skull bones coming out from the wound. Margins inverted and lacerated. connecting Injury no.2. 4. Firearm wound of entry 1/2 cm x 1/2 in x cavity deep on the right side neck lower part, 8.5 on below right ear with inverted margins and lacerated direction downward and backwards. 5. Firearm wound of exit 1.5. Margins inverted and lacerated. connecting Injury no.2. 4. Firearm wound of entry 1/2 cm x 1/2 in x cavity deep on the right side neck lower part, 8.5 on below right ear with inverted margins and lacerated direction downward and backwards. 5. Firearm wound of exit 1.5. cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on the back of right side upper part of chest connecting injury no.4 margins inverter and lacerated. 6. Firearm wound of entry 10.5 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the right axilla with fracture of right upper part humerus and axillary vessels lacerated margins lacerated and inverted. One labda, one tickli and 18 small size metallic pallets recovered from the wound. There is scorching and tattooing around the wound.” 4. During trial prosecution examined seven witnesses and the defence examined five witnesses. Prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh), P.W.-2 (Ram Vilas) and P.W.-5 (Dhan Singh) are witnesses of fact. The P.W.-3 (Jagat Ram) is the constable, who registered the chik F.I.R. and the P.W.-4 (Narendra Singh) is the constable in whose presence the inquest report was prepared. P.W.-6 (Suresh Pal Singh) is the Investigating Officer and P.W.-7 (Dr. Arvind Kumar) is the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased. All the aforesaid witnesses and particularly the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were extensively cross-examined by the defence. 5. The defence produced five witnesses, namely, D.W.-1 (Krishna Chandra), who produced the special report of the incident and proved it, D.W.-2 (constable Mauzi Ram), who produced the general diary relating to the deceased-Rishal Singh, who was the head constable posted at Aligarh, D.W.-3 (Vidhya Vinod Sharma, LDC), who produced the application of Janak Singh dated 07.07.1981 given by Janak Singh to Superintendent of Police, Mathura, which was marked as Exhibit Kha-1, D.W.-4 (Shivdeen Sharma), who produced the photocopy of the application of villagers, which was marked as Exhibit Kha-11 and the D.W.-5 (Dalveer Singh of Police Station- Sahpau), who produced Register No.4 of the year 1973 regarding a complain dated 25.03.1973 under Section 392 I.P.C. in which final report was submitted. Charges were framed and after considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt. Charges were framed and after considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons giving them benefit of doubt. The acquittal was made by the learned Trial Court briefly on two grounds, firstly, that the prosecution could not prove the motive and, secondly, that the Exhibit Kha-1 and Exhibit Kha-11 indicates that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were inimical to the accused persons and, accordingly, disbelieved the evidence of the two eye witnesses i.e., P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The learned Trial Court also observed that the P.W.-5 (Dhan Singh) has not supported the prosecution case. On these grounds, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the four accused persons. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present government appeal. Submissions: 6. Learned AGA submits as under: (i) All the accused persons are named in the F.I.R and F.I.R. was promptly lodged. (ii) The eye witnesses P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh) and P.W.-2 (Ram Vilas) have proved the date, time and place of the incident and that the accused persons have committed murder of the deceased-Rishal Singh. Their evidence are totally consistent and also corroborate with the post mortem report. There is no inconsistency between the F.I.R., evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 and the post mortem report. (iii) Even if the accused persons have disputed the motive, still totally consistent evidence of eye witnesses cannot be discarded and based on the eye witness account the accused persons deserve to be convicted. (iv) The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused persons are liable to be convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. (v) The evidence of P.W.-5 (Dhan Singh) is also consistent with the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2. The finding of the learned Trial Court that the P.W.-5 has not supported the prosecution case is perverse. (vi) The finding of the learned Trial Court in paragraph no.11 of the impugned judgement based on Exhibit Kha-1 and Exhibit Kha-11 is also perverse inasmuch as the Exhibit Kha-1 is an application given by one Janak Singh (father of the P.W.-2) to the Superintendent of Police, Mathura on 03.07.1981 and no evidence could be produced by the accused persons/defence that there was any enmity between the P.W.-2 and the accused persons. Exhibit Kha-11 is a general complaint made by large number of villagers sometime in the year 1980 against the President and the Secretary of Yuvak Dal with regard to some irregularity in distribution of dalia and milk powder in the village in which P.W.-1 was also one of the signatory. This Exhibit Kha-11 also does not prove that there was any enmity between the accused persons and the P.W.-1 or P.W.-2. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-opposite parties submits as under: (i) Motive assigned by the prosecution could not be proved and, as such, the learned Trial Court has rightly and lawfully acquitted the accused persons. (ii) The most natural witness of the incident is the P.W.-5 (Dhan Singh), who has not supported the prosecution case and has specifically stated in his evidence that P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were not with the deceased-Rishal Singh at the time of incident. (iii) Exhibit Kha-1 and 11 proves that the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 were having enmity with the accused persons and for that reason, P.W.-1 has falsely implicated the accused persons by naming them in the First Information Report. The evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 is totally unreliable inasmuch as they are interested witnesses and P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 both are nephews of the deceased-Rishal Singh. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record of the appeal. We find that in the present case the date, time and place of the incident is undisputed. The incident took place at about 00:30 hours in the mid-night of 12/13.04.1985. Police station is about 1.5 kilometres from the place of incident. The First Information Report was lodged by the eye witness P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh), which was registered at the police station on 13.04.1985 itself at about 1:25 hours (1:25 A.M.) i.e., within 55 minutes of the incident. Thus, the First Information Report was promptly lodged by the first informant P.W.-1. The special report was sent by the Police Station-Sahpau to the District Magistrate on 13.04.1985, which was proved by D.W.-1 that it was received at the residence of the District Magistrate, Mathura on 13.04.1985. Thus, prompt registration of F.I.R. and sending of the special report is well proved. 9. The special report was sent by the Police Station-Sahpau to the District Magistrate on 13.04.1985, which was proved by D.W.-1 that it was received at the residence of the District Magistrate, Mathura on 13.04.1985. Thus, prompt registration of F.I.R. and sending of the special report is well proved. 9. In the First Information Report, the motive imputed was that the deceased-Rishal Singh wanted to purchase a land situated near to his house, which was owned by Pokhpal and Laturi Singh both sons of Jai Singh and had also paid some advance amount but about three days before the date of incident, accused Shishpal and Mohan Swarup had purchased the land in the name of their father by obtaining a registered sale deed from the aforesaid Pokhpal and Laturi Singh. Some other dispute regarding pairvi of a case by deceased-Rishal Singh causing enmity was also mentioned in the First Information Report. The first informant has clearly mentioned in the First Information Report that he and the P.W.-2 (Ram Vilas) were sleeping near to his uncle deceased-Rishal Singh and he was having a Torch and there was a lantern burning near to the cot of his uncle and while he and the P.W.-2 were talking, at about 00:30 hours in the night, the accused-Ram Prakash armed with a full length gun, accused-Jagdish armed with pauna gun (short gun), accused-Mohan Swarup armed with a country made pistol and the accused-Shishpal armed with lathi came there. All the three accused persons armed with fire arm weapons fired at the deceased-Rishal Singh, who died after receiving the gun shot injuries. Thereafter, the P.W.-1 shouted and Kanchan Singh, Dhan Singh, Janak Singh and Sunahari Lal Jatav reached there. The accused persons fled away towards Budhaich and since there was no weapon with him (P.W.-1), therefore, he could not have the courage to chase them. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that the P.W.-1 and the P.W.-2 both have seen the accused persons and have recognized them in the light of Torch and Lantern. The injuries found on the body of the deceased-Rishal Singh during autopsy, as extracted above; show that injury nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 are entry wound and injury nos. 3 and 5 are exit wound. Injury no.1, as noted in autopsy report, shows the presence of smoke powder. Injury no.2 shows blackening around the wound. 10. The injuries found on the body of the deceased-Rishal Singh during autopsy, as extracted above; show that injury nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 are entry wound and injury nos. 3 and 5 are exit wound. Injury no.1, as noted in autopsy report, shows the presence of smoke powder. Injury no.2 shows blackening around the wound. 10. The P.W.-1 in his examination-in-chief has narrated the incident, which is totally consistent with the First Information Report. P.W.-1 in his evidence has specifically stated that the registered sale deed was obtained by the accused persons on 10.04.1984 and they wanted to take possession of the land and in that matter some quarrel took place between the accused persons and the deceased-Rishal Singh. He has specifically stated that while his uncle was sleeping on the cot and he alongwith P.W.-2 were present about 4-5 paces away from the cot. Near to the cot, a Lantern was burning and they (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) were talking. The accused-Ram Prakash has opened first fire from the head side of the deceased-Rishal Singh and, thereafter, the other accused persons have also fired at the deceased-Rishal Singh by their fire arms and both (P.W.-1 and P.W.-2) have seen them in the light of the Lantern and Torch. He stated that at about 1:00 A.M. in the night, he has given the First Information Report at the police station. He was extensively cross-examined by the defence but nothing could be extracted by the defence in the cross-examination of P.W.-1 which may shake the confidence in the testimony of the P.W.-1. His testimony is totally consistent and also finds support from the autopsy report. In his cross-examination, P.W.-1 has stated that accused-Ram Prakash has fired at the deceased-Rishal Singh from a distance of about one foot and the accused-opposite party no.2 (Mohan Swarup) and the accused-opposite party no.3 (Jagdish) have fired with their fire arm weapons at the deceased-Rishal Singh from a distance of about 4-6 inches. This evidence stands corroborated with the medical evidence inasmuch as the injury no.1 contains smoke powder, injury no.2 contains blackening around the wound and the injury no.6 contains scorching and tattooing around the wound. The inquest also shows the recovery of small sized metallic pellets from the wounds. Empty cartridges were also recovered from the spot. This evidence stands corroborated with the medical evidence inasmuch as the injury no.1 contains smoke powder, injury no.2 contains blackening around the wound and the injury no.6 contains scorching and tattooing around the wound. The inquest also shows the recovery of small sized metallic pellets from the wounds. Empty cartridges were also recovered from the spot. Thus, the distance of firing by the accused persons at the deceased-Rishal Singh, as deposed by the P.W.-1 in his evidence, corroborates with the autopsy report. Thus, the evidence of informant eye witness P.W.-1 is reliable, trustworthy and cannot be disbelieved. 11. In his evidence, the eye witness P.W.-2 has also narrated the incident as well as seeing and recognizing the accused persons in the light of the Torch and the Lantern. He also proved his presence at the date, time and place of the incident. He also proved the motive. P.W.-2 was also very specific in his evidence that accused-Ram Prakash has opened first fire on the deceased and, thereafter, the other two accused persons have also fired. He stated that he has seen them firing and three or four shots were fired. The post mortem report also discloses four fire arm injuries. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-2 also corroborates with the post mortem report. In paragraph no.7 of his cross-examination, he stated that the accused armed with gun has fired on the deceased-Rishal Singh from a distance of one foot and the barrel of the gun was at a distance of one foot from the body of the deceased. The accused armed with short gun and country made pistol have fired from a distance of about one balisht. Thus, firing by the accused persons with their fire arm weapons at the deceased-Rishal Singh from a very close distance has been proved by the eye witness P.W.-2, which is corroborated with the autopsy report. Firing from a very close distance caused the presence of smoke powder, blackening around the wound and scorching and tattooing around the wound found on the body of the deceased, as per post mortem report. Thus, the distance from which the fire was made by the accused persons, as narrated by the eye witness P.W.-2 is well corroborated with the medical report. Although, the defence extensively cross-examined the P.W.-2 but could not extract any inconsistency in the testimony of the P.W.-2. 12. Thus, the distance from which the fire was made by the accused persons, as narrated by the eye witness P.W.-2 is well corroborated with the medical report. Although, the defence extensively cross-examined the P.W.-2 but could not extract any inconsistency in the testimony of the P.W.-2. 12. Under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.-2 (Ram Vilas) being totally consistent and well corroborated with the medical report, is reliable and trustworthy and, therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed a manifest error of law and fact to disbelieve it. 13. In his evidence, P.W.-5 has stated that he was sleeping at his tubewell with his brother, Kanchan and the mother and he had heard the sound of fire at about 12:00 hours in the night of 12/13.04.1985. He stated that the distance between the place of incident and the place where he was sleeping is about 80-90 paces. He stated that the deceased-Rishal Singh had slept at about 7 P.M. and he (P.W.-5) had slept at about 8 P.M. In paragraph no.12 of his evidence (in cross-examination), the P.W.-1 has stated that he came to his uncle with P.W.-2 at about 9:00 P.M. In paragraph no.10 (in cross-examination) the P.W.-1 stated that when he reached, then his uncle and aunty were there and, thereafter, his aunty returned at about 9:30 P.M. All these facts show that the deceased-Rishal Singh, as stated by the P.W.-5, had slept at about 7 P.M., P.W.-5 had slept at about 8 P.M. and, therefore, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 came at the place of the deceased-Rishal Singh at about 9 P.M. In the light of these undisputed facts, there is no inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-5 inasmuch as the P.W.-5 has stated that the deceased-Rishal Singh was sleeping alone and he has not seen murder of the deceased-Rishal Singh. In saying so, the P.W.-5 is not incorrect inasmuch as he had slept much before the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 came to the deceased and, as such, it is natural that he could not see the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 with the deceased-Rishal Singh. In saying so, the P.W.-5 is not incorrect inasmuch as he had slept much before the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 came to the deceased and, as such, it is natural that he could not see the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 with the deceased-Rishal Singh. So far as the evidence of P.W.-5 that he has not seen the accused persons killing the deceased-Rishal Singh is concerned, it is suffice to observe that the P.W.-5 is not an eye witness and he was sleeping at his tubewell at 80-90 paces away from the place of incident when the incident took place. The P.W.-5 in his statement-in-chief and in cross-examination has already proved the date, time and place of incident, which is totally consistent with the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and the medical evidence inasmuch as, as per autopsy report, the death of the deceased-Rishal Singh is found to be caused at about 00:30 hours in the night. 14. In this evidence, P.W.-7 (Dr. Arvind Kumar), Medical Officer of District Hospital, who conducted the autopsy has proved the autopsy report and the injuries mentioned therein. He also proved that left side frontal parital and temporal bone of the deceased was fractured. Membranes lacerated. Brain lacerated. 8 small metallic pallets recovered from brain matter. Base of the skull anterior middle cranial fossae fractured, Thorax-Right side 3rd and 4th ribs fractured posteriorly. Right plura lacerated. Plural cavity contains one pint of blood. Right upper below of the lung lacerated. In the heart, left chamber half full right full and right side neck bones and vessels lacerated. Stomach empty and N.A.D. Small intestine N.A.D. and contained digested food material. Faecal matter present. GB half full. Blader NAD empty, he opined that death is caused due to coma due to ante mortem injuries and the deceased could have died in the night of 12/13.04.1985 at about 12:30 A.M. and the injuries were sufficient in the original course to cause death of the deceased-Rishal Singh. He also stated that if there is blackening and charring around the wound, then in his opinion, the injury must have been caused from a distance within three feet and if there is tattooing around the wound, then the injuries must have been caused from a distance of only 5-6 inches. This evidence about the distance of firing stands well corroborated with the evidence of eye witnesses P.W-1 and P.W.-2. 15. This evidence about the distance of firing stands well corroborated with the evidence of eye witnesses P.W-1 and P.W.-2. 15. The P.W.-3 (constable Jagat Ram) has proved the chik F.I.R. P.W.-4 (constable Narendra Singh) has proved the inquest report. P.W.-7 (Dr. Arvind Kumar) has proved the post mortem report. P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer) has proved the site plan and recovery memos etc. The defence extensively cross-examined the P.W.-6 (Investigating Officer) but could not extract or demonstrate any inconsistency in his evidence so as to doubt the involvement of the accused-opposite parties in the commission of offence in question. 16. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. We have also discussed about the evidences of D.W.-1, D.W.-2, D.W.-3, D.W.-4 and D.W.-5, which by any stretch of imagination supports the case of the defence. 17. So far as the motive part is concerned, the prosecution has clearly established the motive. That apart, the eye witness account is totally consistent and is corroborated with the medical evidence and, therefore, the eye witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. 18. The finding of the learned Trial Court doubting the motive on the basis of Exhibit Kha-1 and Exhibit Kha-11, is perverse inasmuch as the Exhibit Kha-1 is an application dated 03.07.1981 submitted by one Janak Singh (father of the accused-Jagdish) addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Mathura wherein he complained against the P.W.-2 and his father. The incident involved in the present case is of 12/13.04.1985 i.e., after about four years of the aforesaid application-Exhibit Kha-1. No evidence could be led by the defence to indicate that any grievance continued against the P.W.-2 even after long gap of time. The other documents relied by the learned Trial Court is Exhibit Kha-11. It is a joint application signed by large number of villagers making complaint against the President and the Secretary of Yuvak Dal with regard to some irregularity in distribution of dalia and milk powder in the village. Eventually, amongst large number of signatories of said representation/application (Exhibit Kha-11), the P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh) is also a signatory. This representation was made collectively by the villagers sometime in the month of August, 1980. Eventually, amongst large number of signatories of said representation/application (Exhibit Kha-11), the P.W.-1 (Nepal Singh) is also a signatory. This representation was made collectively by the villagers sometime in the month of August, 1980. No evidence could be led by the defence that how this could have caused enmity specific to the P.W.-1 when the representation was made collectively by the villagers on a minor issue of irregularity in distribution of dalia and milk powder to villagers. Under the circumstances, we find that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in this regard to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and give weight to the Exhibit Kha-1 and Exhibit Kha-11, is perverse. Scope Of Interference In Appeal Against Acquittal 19. In Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court formulated the following principles to be kept in mind by the appellate Court while dealing with appeals against acquittal: - "27. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the appellate court while dealing with appeals, particularly against an order of acquittal: (i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (ii) The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions. (iii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. (iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. (v) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. (vi) While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether 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. (vi) While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether 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 reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion. (vii) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the materials placed." 20. In Khekh Ram v. State of H.P., (2018) 1 SCC 202 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "25. The elaboration of the facts in the decisions cited at the Bar has been to underline the factual setting in which reversal of the orders of acquittal had been interfered with by this Court. Though it is no longer res integra that an order of acquittal, if appealed against, ought not to be lightly interfered with, it is trite as well that the appellate court is fully empowered to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence on record and to reach its own conclusions both on questions of fact and on law. As a corollary, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction and authority to dislodge an acquittal on sound, cogent and persuasive reasons based on the recorded facts and the law applicable. If only when the view taken by the trial court in ordering acquittal is an equally plausible and reasonable one that the appellate court would not readily substitute the same by another view available to it, on its independent appraisal of the materials on record. This legally acknowledged restraint on the power of the appellate court would get attracted only if the two views are equally plausible and reasonable and not otherwise. This legally acknowledged restraint on the power of the appellate court would get attracted only if the two views are equally plausible and reasonable and not otherwise. If the view taken by the trial court is a possible but not a reasonable one when tested on the evidence on record and the legal principles applied, unquestionably it can and ought to be displaced by a plausible and reasonable view by the appellate court in furtherance of the ultimate cause of justice. Though no innocent ought to be punished, it is equally imperative that a guilty ought not to be let off casually lest justice is a casualty." 21. In Achhar Singh v. State of H.P., (2021) 5 SCC 543 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the scope of powers of the High Court in appeals against acquittal in the following manner: - "16. It is thus a well-crystalized principle that if two views are possible, the High Court ought not to interfere with the trial court's judgment. However, such a precautionary principle cannot be overstretched to portray that the "contours of appeal" against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. are limited to seeing whether or not the trial court's view was impossible. It is equally well settled that there is no bar on the High Court's power to re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal. This Court has held in a catena of decisions (including Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao and Raveen Kumar v. State of H.P.) that the Cr.P.C. does not differentiate in the power, scope, jurisdiction or limitation between appeals against judgments of conviction or acquittal and that the appellate court is free to consider on both fact and law, despite the self-restraint that has been ingrained into practice while dealing with orders of acquittal where there is a double presumption of innocence of the accused." 22. The principles as enunciated above and the guidelines which emerge from the aforesaid decisions are that the scope of appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C is not limited to scrutinize whether or not the trial court's view is a possible view. The High Court has to appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal in the same manner as it would do in an appeal against conviction. The High Court has to appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal in the same manner as it would do in an appeal against conviction. However, while adjudicating an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has to keep into consideration that the accused having been acquitted in trial, there is a double presumption of innocence of the accused. 23. Applying the aforesaid principles on scope of interference in appeal against aquittal by the appellate court and for the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that on appreciation of the evidences the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are perverse and even contrary to the evidences on record. The impugned judgement and order dated 22.07.1986 in Session Trial No.244 of 1985 (State vs. Ram Prakash and Others) relating to Case Crime No.58 of 1985 under Section 302/34 I.P.C., P.S.-Sahpaul, District-Mathura passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The accused opposite parties are held to be guilty of the offence committed by them under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Consequently, they are liable for punishment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 24. Accordingly, this government appeal is allowed and accused/opposite parties are held to be guilty of commission of offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. On quantum of sentence 25. Heard learned counsels for the parties on quantum of sentence. 26. Learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that only life imprisonment may be awarded to the accused-opposite parties. We also find that there is no such circumstances, which may be said to be the rarest of the rare circumstances so as to inflict death penalty under Section 302/34 I.P.C. against the accused-opposite parties. Therefore, we agree with the request made by learned counsels for the parties and, accordingly, sentence the accused-opposite parties with life imprisonment. The accused-opposite party nos.1, 3 and 4 shall surrender before the Court concerned forthwith and they shall be sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded by us. 27. The C.J.M. concerned is directed to take the accused-opposite party nos.1, 3 and 4 into custody and send them to jail to serve out the sentence. The accused-opposite party no.2 has already died and appeal qua the accused-opposite party no.2 has already been abated, as mentioned above. 28. 27. The C.J.M. concerned is directed to take the accused-opposite party nos.1, 3 and 4 into custody and send them to jail to serve out the sentence. The accused-opposite party no.2 has already died and appeal qua the accused-opposite party no.2 has already been abated, as mentioned above. 28. A copy of this judgement be sent to the trial court for compliance and office shall return the trial court record forthwith.