ORDER : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State laid a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 16.01.1999, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Parbatsar in Sessions Case No.4/1998 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sukhdevram & Ors), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted for the offence under Sections 302 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1986 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1999. 3. At the outset, Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Sanjay Rewar, appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents, submits that accused-respondent no.1-Sukhdev and accused-respondent no.2-Bhanwarlal had already expired. 3.1. In this view of the matter, the instant appeal qua deceased accused-respondent No.1-Sukhdev and deceased accused-respondent No.2-Bhanwarlal stands abated. Thus, now this appeal is surviving only qua accused-respondent No.3-Bhagirath, and the same is adjudicated only to the extent of the surviving accused-respondent-Bhagirath. 4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned GA-cum-AAG appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that the incident which is of intervening night of 23 & 24 September, 1986 at around 1:00 – 2:00 am whereby it was reported that at Bhoja Nimbari Kalan deceased Premaram was murdered in the open yard of his residence. 5. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR was registered and the investigation accordingly commenced. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC against the accused persons, and the trial commenced accordingly. 6. During the course of the trial, the evidence of sixteen prosecution witnesses were recorded and eighteen documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which the accused respondents pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question. 7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents, vide the impugned judgment dated 16.01.1999, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 8. 7. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as after considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned trial Court, acquitted the accused-respondents, vide the impugned judgment dated 16.01.1999, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 8. Learned GA-cum-AAG for the appellant-state submits that prosecution witness PW-9 Mohan has sufficiently supported the case of the prosecution as he has deposed that while sleeping in the house adjoining to the place of incident, he heard a gun shot at about 2 am, to which he got up and saw that Bhawra Ram and Khiw Singh were running away from the spot and that Bhawra Ram was carrying a gun. He also saw that Bhawra Ram and Khiw Singh thereafter went to the home of Sukhdevram (Sarpanch). 8.1. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that there was no eye witness of the incident except PW-9 Mohan but he fairly submits that Mohan has rendered the incidence after one month of the incidence because he claimed that he was afraid of Sukhdevram and thus, did not make timely disclosure of the incident. 8.2. Learned GA-cum-AAG also submits that PW-9 Mohan has valid reason to make a subsequent disclosure as it was only after a Panchayat meeting that he gathered strength and courage to make the statement and since the incident pertains to the accused persons running away from the place of incident after shooting, therefore, he becomes a crucial evidence sufficient to make conviction. 8.3. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that the incident took place at the home of the deceased and thus, since it is bereft of direct public involvement therefore, very wide expansion of evidence is not possible. He also submits the medical evidence indicates that 21 pallets out of the bullet were found on the head of the deceased which resulted in head injury causing death of deceased Premaram. 8.4. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that it was also under consideration by the learned trial Court that the gun shot injury was given from a very near distance which was hardly about 2 to 3 inches and thus, the injury caused the death which was also supported by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. 8.5. 8.4. Learned GA-cum-AAG further submits that it was also under consideration by the learned trial Court that the gun shot injury was given from a very near distance which was hardly about 2 to 3 inches and thus, the injury caused the death which was also supported by the evidence of the Investigating Officer. 8.5. Learned GA-cum-AAG also submits that the animosity between the parties was writ large and the Panchayat witnesses have attributed that there was a clear motive behind the crime in question as Sukhdevram was having animosity with deceased Premaram and even his own son Bhanwarlal and another person Bhagirath Singh for the crime in question. 9. On the other hand learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State and submits that since there are no eye witnesses to the case, the only relevant part would be PW-9 Mohan and the disclosure made by the PW-9 Mohan at belated stage of one month due to some kind of pressure of Panchayat which was held and thus, there are no credible witnesses to support the actual incident. 9.1 Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts, and thus, the well reasoned impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 11. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation against the accused-respondent is that he committed the murder of the deceased, whereas during trial the said allegation against the accused-respondent was found to be false, and thus, vide the impugned judgment, the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. 12. 11. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation against the accused-respondent is that he committed the murder of the deceased, whereas during trial the said allegation against the accused-respondent was found to be false, and thus, vide the impugned judgment, the accused-respondent was acquitted of the offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC. 12. This Court further observes that the prosecution, in support of its case, mainly relied upon the testimony of PW.9 Mohan, who has produced as eyewitness during the trial, and this Court finds that the said witnesses visited the place of incident on the next day and also he remained present during the last rites of the deceased at his house, but the information of the said incident was given by the said witnesses after one month of the incident in question during certain meeting, wherein he has stated about the incident in question; in the given circumstances, the testimony of the said witness casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. 13. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011, decided on 12.02.2024) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder - Mallappa & Ors. (Supra): “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010, decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder - Mallappa & Ors. (Supra): “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra): “38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/ omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 14. This Court also observes that the there are many contradictions as well as doubts in the evidence produced by the prosecution, and that, the testimony of PW.9 Mohan, who has produced as a sole eyewitness during the trial, as mentioned above, was very doubtful and thus, there was no eyewitness of the incident in question, and the testimonies of the other witnesses PW.4 & PW.6 are having major contradictions, thus, sufficiently broke the entire chain of evidence in the present case. This Court observe that even the circumstantial and corroborative evidence in the case, on conjoint consideration of the testimony of PW-9 Mohan, the testimony of PW-4 Bhuraram and PW-6 Rugharam and also from Postmortem report (Ex.-P/18) as well as the testimony of the Investigating Officer does not induce confidence of this Court to deviate from the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. The witness of PW-9 Mohan is not trust worthy due to the delay in making his disclosure statement. Moreover, he has not seen the actual incident and has just seen the accused Bhanwarlal and Bhagirath Singh were running away from the place of incident. 15. This Court is conscious of the fact that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion whereby benefit of doubt has been given to the accused-respondents. 16. Moreover, he has not seen the actual incident and has just seen the accused Bhanwarlal and Bhagirath Singh were running away from the place of incident. 15. This Court is conscious of the fact that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion whereby benefit of doubt has been given to the accused-respondents. 16. This Court further observes that the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondent under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC, which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analysed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 17. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 18. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court. 19. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 20. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent No.3 Bhagirath Singh is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 19. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 20. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent No.3 Bhagirath Singh is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount, before the learned trial Court, which shall be made effective for a period of six months, to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or for grant of leave, the accused-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as he would be called upon to do so. 21. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.