Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 239 (GUJ)

STATE OF GUJARAT v. BHAKU KHODA KHANT

2023-02-06

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2023
JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order, Dated: 06.06.1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal (‘trial Court’ hereinafter), in Session Case No. 64 of 1990, whereby, the trial Court acquitted the original accused Nos. 1 to 5 of the charge of commission of the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in brief ‘IPC’) and Sections 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal. 2. At the outset, it may be noted that during the pendency of this appeal, original accused No. 2-appellant No. 2 passed away and therefore, this appeal survives qua original accused-appellant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 only. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution, as was unfurled before the trial Court, reads thus: Kanjibhai Veljibhai Khant PW-16, who happens to be the real brother of the deceased-Govind Veljibhai, lodged a complaint with Gondal Police Station on 20.05.1990, wherein, he stated that they are total three brothers. It is stated in the complaint that for agricultural purpose the deceased-Govindbhai had made an application for grant of the land of the village, which had submerged due to Bhadar Dam. Pursuant to such application, the deceased-Govindbhai was allotted about three acres of land, before about twelve days from the date of alleged incident, for agricultural purpose. 3.1 It is, further, stated in the complaint that on the date of the alleged offence, i.e. on 20.05.1990, his brother PW-17 Narsibhai had gone to the land, which was allotted to the deceased-Govindhbhai for carrying out agricultural activities, and thereafter, the deceased-Govindbhai had followed him. Later on, the complainant-PW-16 Kanjibhai also went to the land allotted to the deceased-Govindbhai. 3.1.1 When, PW-16 Kanjibhai reached the place of incident, he found that his brother Narsibhai was ploughing the land and at that time, the original accused Nos. 1 to 5, i.e. Bhaku Khoda, Mansukh Khoda, Jeram Khoda, Sukha @ Chana Khoda and Shamji Khoda, came there and picked-up a quarrel with the deceased-Govindbhai. 3.1.2 It is stated in the complaint that original accused No. 2-Mansukha and accused No. 4-Sukha had raamp in their hands. It is also stated in the complaint that the accused No. 2-Mansukh told the deceased-Govindbhai that they are going to finish them off, today. 3.1.2 It is stated in the complaint that original accused No. 2-Mansukha and accused No. 4-Sukha had raamp in their hands. It is also stated in the complaint that the accused No. 2-Mansukh told the deceased-Govindbhai that they are going to finish them off, today. On hearing the same, the deceased-Govindbhai replied that he is standing there for them, i.e. the accused, to attack him. 3.1.3 On hearing the same, accused No. 2-Mansukh inflicted a blow of raamp on the head of the deceased-Govindbhai and the deceased-Govindbhai fell down, there and then. When, PW-16 Kanjibhai tried to intervene, accused No. 4-Sukhabhai inflicted a blow of ramp on the head of PW-16 Kanjibhai and on account of that he called his brother-Narsibhai for help, who was ploughing and he also fell down. When PW-17 Narsibhai came to rescue PW-16 Kanjibhai, accused No. 1-Bhaku caught hold of PW-17 Narsibhai and accused No. 4-Sukhabhai inflicted a blow of ramp on the head of PW-17 Narsibhai. 3.1.4 It is, further, stated in the complaint that, when the brother of his uncle, namely Kadvabhai Khimabhai PW-18, who was ploughing the land of the deceased-Govindbhai, came at the place of occurrence, he was also attacked by the accused persons. However, the complainant did not state in his complaint, as to who beat PW-18 Kadvabhai. 3.1.5 It is, further, stated in the complaint that after the complainant-Kanjibhai fell down, accused Nos. 3 and 5, who had sticks in their hands, started beating the deceased- Govindbhai and PW-18 Kadvabhai. Pursuant thereto, on hearing the commotion, since, Mavjibhai Nanjibhai and Rasik Nanjibhai PW-14, who were working in the nearby filed, came to the place of incident, whereupon, the accused persons fled the scene of offence. 3.1.6 Pursuant thereto, the tractor of one Manji Madhabhai was called from the village and the complainant-PW-16 Kanjibhai and PW-17 Narsibhai were, firstly, taken to Navagam and from there, they were taken to Gomta Government Dispensary in the matador of one Nanji Motibhai, where, after giving primary treatment to them, they were referred to Civil Hospital, Rajkot. It is stated in the complaint by the complainant-Kanjibhat that, since, his brother Govindbhai had passed away on the spot, his dead-body was kept there. It is stated in the complaint by the complainant-Kanjibhat that, since, his brother Govindbhai had passed away on the spot, his dead-body was kept there. 3.2 After the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and since, sufficient evidence were found against all the accused persons, he filed the charge-sheet before the Court of the learned JMFC, Gondal. However, since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned JMFC carried out the necessary procedure under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ in short) and committed the case before the trial Court. 3.3 Before the trial Court, in order to bring home the charges leveled against all the accused persons, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: S. No. Name of the Witness Prosecution Witness Number Exhibit Number 1. Manubhai Merabhai PW-1 35 2. Pithabhai Karsanbhai PW-2 36 3. Malabhai Hirabhai PW-3 40 4. Dr. Mansukhlal Durlabhji Indrodia PW-4 51 5. Dr. Nikhilkumar Pushkarray Buch PW-5 59 6. Vilasgiri Balgiri PW-6 86 7. Jentilal Nanjibhai PW-7 91 8. Vallabh Kanji PW-8 109 9. Hareshkumar Narsibhai Savaliya PW-9 114 10. Kirit Rasiklal Shukal PW-10 128 11. Sureshchandra Manilal Patel PW-11 150 12. Balbhadrasinh Gajrajsinh Jadeja PW-12 167 13. Jivraj Rudabhai PW-13 173 14. Rasik Nanjibhai PW-14 174 15. Babubhai Velabhai Dabhi PW-15 178 16. Kanji Veljibhai PW-16 181 17. Narsi Veljibhai PW-17 182 18. Kadva Khimabhai PW-18 183 19. Bhanuben Kadvabhai PW-19 184 20. Govindsinh Jilubha Chudasama PW-20 187 21. Govindbhai Motibhai PW-21 188 22. Chhaganlal Lakhmanbhai PW-22 190 23. Gokulbhai Vasantbhai Parmar PW-23 194 24. Bharatkumar Devshankar Dave PW-24 197 25. Kantilal Jagannath PW-25 205 26. Mohanlal Jethalal Teraiya PW-26 213 27. Vijalal Ratilal PW-27 214 28. Mohanbhai Nathabhai PW-28 217 29. Karsanbhai Govindbhai Patel PW-29 221 30. Sakabhai Lakshmanbhai Desai PW-30 224 3.4 Over and above the same, the prosecution also produced the following documentary evidences: S. No. Particulars of the Document Exhibit Number 1. Arrest Panchnama of Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 37 2. Panchnama Seizure of clothes of the accused 38, 39 3. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the witness-Kadvabhai, at the time of incident 41 4. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the accused-Bhaku @ Bhavsing Khoda, at the time of incident 42 5. Arrest Panchnama of Accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 37 2. Panchnama Seizure of clothes of the accused 38, 39 3. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the witness-Kadvabhai, at the time of incident 41 4. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the accused-Bhaku @ Bhavsing Khoda, at the time of incident 42 5. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the accused-Mansukh Khoda, at the time of incident 43 6. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the complainant-Kanji Velji, at the time of incident 45 7. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the witness-Narsi Velji, at the time of incident 46 8. Arrest panchnama of accused No. 1-Bhaku Khoda 47 9. Arrest panchnama of accused No. 2-Mansukh Khoda 48 10. Panchnama of seizure of the clothes put on by the deceased-Govindbhai, at the time of incident 49 11. Medical case papers of Kanji Velji issued by PHC 52 12. Injury certificate of Kanji Velji issued by PHC, Gomta 53 13. Medical case papers of Narsi Velji by PHC 54 14. Injury certificate of Narsi Velji issued by PHC, Gomta 55 15. Post mortem note of the deceased-Govindbhai 56 16. Inquest Panchnama 58 17. Injury certificate of Narsi Velji issued by Civil Hospital, Rajkot 60 18. Medical case papers of Kanji Velji issued by Civil Hospital, Rajkot 61 19. Indoor Medical case papers of Kanji Velji issued by Civil Hospital, Rajkot 63, 64, 65 20. X-ray report and X-ray plates of Kadva Khima 66, 67, 68 21. Outdoor and Indoor Medical case papers of Narsi Velji issued by Civil Hospital, Rajkot 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 22. Injury certificate and medical case papers of Mansukh Khoda issued by Civil Hospital, Rajkot 78, 79 23. Outdoor, Indoor Medical case papers and injury certificate of Bhaku Khoda issued by Civil Hospital, Rajkot 80, 81, 83 24. Indoor medical case papers and X-ray report of Mansukh Khoda issued by Civil Hospital, Rajkot 84, 85 25. Panchnama of place of offence 87 26. Panchnama of seizure of the weapon produced by the accused-Mansukh Khoda 92 27. Panchnama of seizure of the weapon produced by the accused-Bhaku Khoda 110 28. Medical case papers, injury certificates and hospital transfer papers of the witnesses, Narsi Velji, Kanji Velji and Kadva Khima 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 29. Panchnama of seizure of the weapon produced by the accused-Mansukh Khoda 92 27. Panchnama of seizure of the weapon produced by the accused-Bhaku Khoda 110 28. Medical case papers, injury certificates and hospital transfer papers of the witnesses, Narsi Velji, Kanji Velji and Kadva Khima 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 29. Medical certificates of Bhaku and Mansukh Khoda issued by Gondal Hospital 125, 126 30. Injury certificate and X-ray report of the witness-Narsi Velji 130 to 138 31. Medical case papers, injury 139 to certificate and X-ray report of the witness-Narsi Velji 149 32. Order of the Dy. Collector, granting land to the deceased-Govindbhai for agricultural purpose 151 33. Rojkam of handing over the possession of the land at Bhadar Dam to the deceased-Govind 152 34. Report of Talati-cum-Mantri, Navgam Gram Panchayat, with regard to handing over the land to the concerned persons 153 35. Copies of Exhibits-152 and 153 155, 156 36. Information of register of irrigation demand 163 37. Receipts towards payment 165, 166 38. Order of the Mamlatdar, Gondal, imposing fine for trespassing, memorandum sent for preparing the map of the place of the offence and map of the place of offence 168 to 169 39. Report of Circle Officer with regard to sending of map of the place of offence 170 40. Extract of the Diary Entry No. 6 of Hospital Chowky, Pradyumnanagar Police Station, Rajkot 189 41. The extract of Entry No. 14/90 and 15/90 of Diary entry dated 20.05.1990 of Pradyumnanagar Police Station, Rajkot 191, 192 42. The extract of Entry No. 15/90 192 43. The extract of Entry No. 22/90 195 44. Report sent by the Head Constable, Hospital Chowky, Rajkot, to the Executive Magistrate for recording DD 198 45. Dying declaration of Narsi Velji and Kanji Velji 199, 200 46. Report prepared by the Police Constable, Hospital Chowky, Rajkot, to record DD 201 47. Dying declaration of Kadva Khima 202 48. The extract of Gondal Police Station Diary Entry Nos. 10, 11, 5 and 6 206, 207, 215, 216 49. The extract of Entry No. 2 of Station Diary of Civil Hospital Chowky, Rajkot 218 50. The original complaint 240 51. The extract of Entry No. 1 and photocopy of Entry No. 5 of Station Diary of Civil Hospital Chowky, Rajkot 219, 220 52. Report of sending panchnama and the clothes of the deceased-Govindbhai 222 53. The extract of Entry No. 2 of Station Diary of Civil Hospital Chowky, Rajkot 218 50. The original complaint 240 51. The extract of Entry No. 1 and photocopy of Entry No. 5 of Station Diary of Civil Hospital Chowky, Rajkot 219, 220 52. Report of sending panchnama and the clothes of the deceased-Govindbhai 222 53. Post mortem form 223 54. Office copy of the letter addressed to the FSL, while sending the muddamal articles 225 55. Report of the FSL, Junagadh 226, 227 56. Pursis for closing the evidence 230 3.5 On completion of the recording of the evidence, the trial Court recorded the further statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, all the accused-opponents, herein, denied their involvement in the commission of the alleged offence and stated that a false complaint is filed and that they have been falsely implicated in the offence in question. 3.6 After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates on both the sides and after perusing the material on record, the trial Court passed the impugned judgment and order, acquitting all the accused of the charges, as referred to in Paragraph-1, herein above. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned APP, Ms. Jhaveri, appearing for the appellant-State mainly contended that the prosecution produced sufficient documentary as well as the oral evidence before the trial Court in regard to the incident, which took place on 20.05.1990, wherein, one Govindbhai succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, whereas, the complainant, Kanji Velji PW-16, PW-17 Narsibhai and Kadvabhai PW-18 received grave injuries. 4.1 It was submitted that the injuries sustained by PW-16-Kanjibhai and others are supported by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of independent witness and the evidence of doctors. 4.2 It was also submitted that the prosecution witness, namely Dr. Mansukh PW-4, who had performed post mortem on the body of Govindbhai, had deposed before the trial Court that injury Nos. 1 to 4 found by him on the body of the deceased-Govindbhai were ante mortem in nature and the death of Govindbhai was homicidal one. By referring to the same, it was submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 302 of the IPC, beyound reasonable doubt. 1 to 4 found by him on the body of the deceased-Govindbhai were ante mortem in nature and the death of Govindbhai was homicidal one. By referring to the same, it was submitted that the trial Court ought to have held that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 302 of the IPC, beyound reasonable doubt. 4.3 It was, further, submitted that the weapons, i.e. raamp and sticks, which were allegedly used in the commission of the offence, were identified by the doctor before the trial Court and he had opined that the injuries found by him on the body of the deceased-Govindbhai could be caused by such weapons. It was, therefore, submitted that the doctor fully supported the case of the prosecution. 4.4 Learned APP, Ms. Jhaveri, then, submitted that the private doctor, namely Dr. Shukla PW-10, had stated before the trial Court that the injuries sustained by the witnesses were serious in nature and thereby, Dr. Shukla PW-10 also supported the case of the prosecution. 4.5 Learned APP, Ms. Jhaveri, submitted that PW-11 and 12, who were Revenue Officers, have also supported the case of the prosecution, by producing the relevant documentary evidence. It was submitted that PW-11 and 12 stated, on oath, before the trial Court that the District Collector, Rajkot, had allotted the land in question to the deceased-Govindbhai and therefore, the evidence of these witnesses prove the case of the prosecution, with regard to the cause or motive for commission of the alleged offence. 4.6 It was also submitted that, during the course of commission of the alleged offence, accused No. 1-Bhaku and accused No. 2-Mansukh had also sustained severe injuries and therefore, the trial Court ought to have held that the presence of accused Nos. 1 and 2, at the place of offence, is successfully proved by the prosecution. 4.7. Learned APP submitted that the prosecution examined the first informant, i.e. Kanjibhai, as PW-16, who had sustained injuries at the time of commission of the alleged offence, and PW-16 categorically narrated the role played by each of the accused before the trial Court and thereby, he fully supported the case of the prosecution. 4.8 Learned APP, Ms. 4.7. Learned APP submitted that the prosecution examined the first informant, i.e. Kanjibhai, as PW-16, who had sustained injuries at the time of commission of the alleged offence, and PW-16 categorically narrated the role played by each of the accused before the trial Court and thereby, he fully supported the case of the prosecution. 4.8 Learned APP, Ms. Jhaveri, therefore, submitted that the oral as well as the documentary evidences adduced by the prosecution fully proves its case beyound reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala, appearing for the opponents-original accused supported the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and vehemently opposed this appeal. 5.1 It was submitted that there are serious infirmities and contradictions in the case of the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyound reasonable doubt. 5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala, submitted that the trial Court rightly noted that the witnesses improved and exaggerated their versions, while giving evidence before it, and that the prosecution also suppressed the genesis of the crime in question. 5.3 It was submitted that the trial Court also rightly noted that the prosecution failed to examine the material witnesses and therefore, the trial Court committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and order. 5.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala, submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons and the same causes, serious doubts about the case put forth by the prosecution. 5.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala, submitted that it is a clear case of free fight between two sides, where, the prosecution witnesses have not stated, as to how the incident actually took place and as to how the accused persons sustained injuries. Hence, the trial Court has rightly not believed the case of the prosecution. 5.6 Learned Advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala, submitted that even the FIR was registered at a belated stage, though, there were ample opportunities to register the same, at the earliest. 5.7 Learned Advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala, submitted that it is the settled principle of law that in an acquittal appeal, if, there are two views possible, then, the view, which is favourable to the accused person, is to be taken or adopted. 5.7 Learned Advocate, Mr. Anandjiwala, submitted that it is the settled principle of law that in an acquittal appeal, if, there are two views possible, then, the view, which is favourable to the accused person, is to be taken or adopted. It was, therefore, submitted that the trial Court committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and order and hence, this appeal may be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and also perused the material on record and we are of the considered opinion that there is no error, much less any illegality, committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned judgment and order for the reasons set out, herein-below. 6.1 It is true that the accused persons did not challenge the occurrence of the alleged offence. However, when the manner, in which the actual incident took place or the actual cause or genesis of the offence in question has not come on record, and though, there were ample opportunities with the prosecution witnesses to explain or to state the occurrence of the offence and when they have not done the same, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. 6.2 We have noticed that the prosecution witnesses failed to explain, as to how the injuries were caused to the accused persons, though, the same were serious in nature. The doctor examined by the prosecution clearly stated that accused Nos. 1-Bhaku and 2-Mansukh had sustained injuries on the head and the same were serious in nature and one of the accused had also sustained fracture injury. Thus, nonexplanation of the injuries sustained by the accused persons, on the part of the prosecution would create serious doubt about the case put forth by it before the trial Court. 6.3 Here, it is also relevant to note that the alleged incident took place on 20.05.1990, at about 08:00 a.m. in the agricultural field, which is in the occupation and possession of the accused persons, though, the same was disputed by the complainant side by saying that the said land was allotted to the deceased-Govindbhai by the Collector before about two weeks from the date of the incident. However, there is nothing produced on the record to prove the claim of the complainant side. However, there is nothing produced on the record to prove the claim of the complainant side. Hence, the trial Court rightly did not believe the case of the prosecution that the deceased-Govindbhai was allotted the land by the Collector. 6.3.1 Now, in regard to the above, if, we examine the evidence of the Revenue Officer, who were examined by the prosecution as PW-11 and PW-12, it is revealed that both these witnesses were unable to prove or show that, in fact, there was an official order granting the land in question in favour of the deceased-Govindbhai. 6.3.2 So far as the document containing Rojkam, Exhibit-156, of handing over the possession of the land in question to the deceased-Govindbhai is concerned, the trial Court noted that the document, Exhibit-156, neither bear any inward or outward number nor did it bear the signature of either Mamlatdar or Deputy Mamlatdar. Thus, there is a serious doubt with regard to the ownership of the place of occurrence and the prosecution failed to prove the actual place of incident and as to who is the actual owner of the said land. Thus, the trial Court rightly did not believe the document, Exhibit-156. 6.3.3 We also notice that the prosecution also failed to examine some material witnesses, like Surta, who happens to be the daughter of PW-18 Kadvabhai and who had informed Babu Vela about the alleged offence. The prosecution offered no explanation for not citing Surta, as one of the witnesses. Moreover, other key-witnesses were also not examined by the prosecution, which would raise doubts about the case of the prosecution. 6.4 We also notice that there are also material contradictions in the evidence of the expert witnesses and the documentary evidences produced by the prosecution. It is on account of such inconsistencies and defects in the case of the prosecution that the trial Court observed that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed, since, certain important witnesses were not examined by the prosecution and the material witnesses, which were examined by the prosecution not only tried to exaggerate but they also tried to improve their case. The trial Court, hence, rightly not relied on such evidences. The trial Court, hence, rightly not relied on such evidences. 6.5 Insofar as, the weapons, which were allegedly used in the commission of the offence, is concerned, from the close scrutiny of the evidence of the doctors and other documentary evidences, it becomes clear that the same were mere agricultural instruments, i.e. raamp or khampari and it was not possible to cause injuries, which were sustained by the deceased and some of the other injured witnesses. Dr. Mansukhlal PW-4, who had carried out post mortem of the body of the deceased-Govindbhai, in his deposition before the trial Court, clearly stated that the injuries noticed by him on the body of the deceased were possible with sharp edged weapon. Thus, it becomes clear that the injuries found on the body of the deceased-Govindbhai could not have been caused by the weapons, which were seized by police, i.e. raamp or khampari and sticks. 6.6 Here, it is also pertinent to note that it has not come on record, as to who had taken the deceased Govindbhai to the hospital from the place of occurrence. In fact, PW-13 Jivraj Ruda, who had taken the injured PW-16 Kanji, PW-17 Narsi and PW-18 Kadvabhai to hospital, stated that, since, they thought that the deceased-Govindbhai was no more, they did not take him to hospital and let him lye at the place of occurrence, as it is. 6.6.1 Further, According to PW-13 Jivraj his statement was recorded at Civil Hospital, Rajkot. Now, at Paragraph-12 of his cross-examination, PW-13 Jivraj Ruda stated that it was his own decision that injured Govind was to be left at the place, where he was lying. PW-13, further, stated that it was his own decision that injured Govind was no more. Further, at Paragraph-13 of his cross-examination, PW-13 Jivraj stated that on reaching the village, he neither informed anybody about the alleged incident nor did he ask anybody to go to the place of incident and fetch the injured Govindbhai. Such a conduct on the part of PW-13 Jivraj does not appear to be natural or normal. Thus, considering the nature of evidence of PW-13, the trial Court has rightly not believed the same. 6.7 Moreover, the prosecution also tried to prove its case by relying on the evidence of PW-19 Bhanu Kadvabhai, who posed herself as the eye-witness. Such a conduct on the part of PW-13 Jivraj does not appear to be natural or normal. Thus, considering the nature of evidence of PW-13, the trial Court has rightly not believed the same. 6.7 Moreover, the prosecution also tried to prove its case by relying on the evidence of PW-19 Bhanu Kadvabhai, who posed herself as the eye-witness. However, when the evidence of PW-19 is examined in the light of evidence of other witnesses, it becomes clear that she could not have witnessed the occurrence by herself. 6.8 Further, the evidence of PW-15 Babu Vela, who happened to be the brother of the deceased-Govindbhai and who was discharging duties as Talti-Cum-Mantri at Bandhiya village, at the relevant point of time, reveals that, though, he received the information about the alleged offence, neither he tried to lodge an FIR nor did he tried to give his statement to the police. The prosecution has not explained such a conduct on the part of PW-15-Babu Vela. 6.9 We also notice that there are a number of inter se contradiction in the evidence of PW-16 Kanji Velji, PW-17 Narsi Velji and PW-18 Kadva Khima and therefore, the trial Court rightly did not believe the evidence of these witnesses. 6.10 At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Apex Court with regard to the powers of the appellate Court, while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal, in Chandrappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , which reads as under: “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 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. (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. (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.” 6.11 The Division Bench of this Court also took the similar view in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2022, where, at Paragraphs-10 and 12, it is observed thus: “10. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. [Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 ]. In the instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 11. In the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 280 , Supreme Court has held as under: “The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal.” 12. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 444 and Bhaiyamiyan alias Jardar Khan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.” 6.12 It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal, if, other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 6.13 In the instant case, the learned APP for the appellant has not been able to point out, as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 6.14 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Others (Supra), while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning given by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be set aside. 6.14 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Others (Supra), while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning given by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be set aside. It is further observed that High Courts interference in such appeals is somewhat circumscribed and if, the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. 6.15 We have independently re-appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court and also examined the reasoning recorded by the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and we are of the view that, if, in the light of the above circumstances, the learned Trial Court felt that the accused could get the benefit of doubt, such a view cannot be held to be illegal, improper or contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal, powers of appellate Court are as wide as that of the Trial Court and it can review, re-appreciate and reconsider the entire evidence brought on record by the parties and can come to its own conclusion on facts as well as on law, in the the facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed herein above, the view taken by the learned Trial Court for acquitting the accused seems to be possible and plausible. Therefore, on the basis of evidence, even if, it is to be assumed that the other view is equally possible, even then, it is well settled and well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the learned Trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the Appellate Court. 6.16 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, upon which the reliance is placed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties, and while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the concerned Trial Court. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the trial Court has committed no error in passing the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the opponent-original accused. 7. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is DISMISSED, accordingly. The judgment and order, dated 06.06.1994, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal, in Session Case No. 64 of 1990 is, hereby, CONFIRMED. 7.1 Bail bonds executed by the opponent-accused stands DISCHARGED. 7.2 Registry is directed to sent back R&P, if any, to the concerned trial Court, forthwith.