ORDER : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 378 (III) & (I) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant-State who laid a challenge to the judgment of acquittal dated 06.11.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Didwana, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.7/2008 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ugma Ram & Ors.), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted for the offence under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 323 & 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 2008 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 2010. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Yogendra Charan, learned AAAG appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that the incident happened on 15.03.2008 at about 7:00 pm at village Mandukara whereby it was reported by the complainant Raju Ram, who was subsequently examined as PW-3 during the trial. He stated that all the relatives were having separate Dhani near his Dhani. While he was studying, deceased Ramniwas S/o Baba Chokha Ram came to his house alongwith one Deepa Ram Dudi. The complainant submitted that in the evening at about 5:00 pm when Ramniwas was returning home, he was attacked by Ugma Ram, Kunaram, Babulal, Raju Devi W/o Ugma Ram and Sohni Devi W/o Kunaram who were carrying Lathis, Kassiya and Axes with them. The omnibus allegations were lodged on all the accused for causing blows to the body of the deceased. The complainant’s version is that he himself tried to save, but he received injuries and therefore escaped from the place of incident. 4. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR bearing No.14/2008 was registered and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302, & 323 IPC against the five accused persons, and the trial commenced accordingly. 5. During the course of the trial, the evidence of nineteen prosecution witnesses were recorded, however no defence witness were examined; 58 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution whereas no document was exhibited on behalf of the accused-respondents; thereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused-respondents pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question. 6. 6. 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 06.11.2009, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-State. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-state has drawn the attention of this Court towards the deposition of PW-3 Raju Ram and has submitted that since he has himself received three injuries, his presence at the site is undisputed and he is a credible witness; therefore, his testimony should be sufficient to prove the cause of death in question of the deceased. 7.1 Learned State counsel has pointed towards Ex.-P/3 which is the injury report of the complainant PW-3 Raju Ram. He further submits that the FIR was lodged in time, the weapons were recovered, FSL was conducted, all the weapons were having blood stains and thus the story of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7.2 Learned State counsel also submits that PW-2 Dr. V.K. Garg submitted that a rigor mortis occurred due to the death taking place 12 to 24 hours prior. Though PW-2 admitted that there was a single injury on the body of the deceased Ramniwas which was responsible for causing the death of the deceased Ramniwas. 7.3 Learned State counsel further explained that the injuries in question were caused using a blunt object and that the injuries were attributed to an ‘Axe’ which is a sharp weapon and therefore, the said injuries were caused to the deceased by the reverse side of the Axe. 7.4 Learned State counsel also submits that the learned trial Court has erred in not accepting the credibility of the injured witness PW-3 Raju Ram who sustained injuries at the relevant time and thus his testimonies cannot be discarded. 7.5 Learned State counsel has taken us to the recovery memo which shows that there was recovery of Lathi and Zeli. He has also harped upon the testimony of PW-3 Raju Ram who is an eye witness and also admits that PW-1 Deepa Ram, PW-4 Sohan and PW-7 Santosh turned hostile. 7.6 Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments: (a) Vedivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras [ AIR 1957 SC 614 ] (b) Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar [ 1996 (1) SCC 614 ] (c) Vishvas Aba Kurane Vs. 7.6 Learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments: (a) Vedivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras [ AIR 1957 SC 614 ] (b) Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar [ 1996 (1) SCC 614 ] (c) Vishvas Aba Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 1978 (1) SCC 474 ] 7.7 Learned State counsel submits that in these judgments the precedent law is settled that even if, there is one credible eye witness, it is sufficient to make conviction. 8. On the other hand Shri Abhishek Charan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State and has taken this Court to the Post-Mortem Report (Ex.-P/2) which clearly shows that there is single injury which has resulted in the death of the deceased and that the said injury has been caused by a blunt weapon. 8.1 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards the FSL report (Ex.P/56) put on record which clearly reflects that apart from the clothes, all weapons, namely, the Zeli, two Lathis, two Kuwarias/Axes which were recovered during investigation, were all having blood stains. 8.2 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents further submits that once all the weapons have blood stains and there is only a single injury as per the doctors’ version then automatically the testimony of PW-3 Raju Ram collapses and could not be sustained. 8.3 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents further submits that the injury report is in conflict with the FSL report and also the version given by PW-3 Raju Ram who is so called a credible eye witness. 8.4 Learned counsel for the accused-respondents also submits that the testimony of PW-3 Raju Ram itself collapses because there are omnibus allegations which have been made that each one of the accused has caused injuries to the deceased Ramniwas however the single injury sustained is blunt in nature. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 10. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation against the accused-respondents is that they committed the murder of the deceased. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 10. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation against the accused-respondents is that they committed the murder of the deceased. However, during trial the said allegation against the accused-respondents were found to be false, and thus, vide the impugned judgment, the accused- respondents were acquitted of the offence under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 323 & 323/149 IPC. 11. This Court also observes that in the present case, the testimony which is relevant is of PW-3 Raju Ram. If it is only PW-3 who is to be believed then the case only travels towards the whelm of conviction. Otherwise, rest of the witnesses have either turned hostile or are not relevant to the particular case of prosecution. This Court finds on a careful reading of testimony of PW-3 Raju Ram, that he has made an allegation that at about 5:00 PM all of the family members who are the accused attacked the deceased Ramniwas and gave omnibus blows to him by the alleged weapons which included two Lathis, one Zeli and two Axes and such repeated injuries have been reported by him; the same version has been consistent in FIR as well as in the testimony given before the learned trial Court in the capacity of PW-3. This Court notes that all the other witnesses have turned hostile and the credible witness PW-3 Raju Ram is full of contradiction. 12. This Court is convinced that the FSL report itself gives the biggest drawback for the prosecution because all the weapons which are exhibit numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 contain human blood and thus, the prosecution story of all the weapons having being used for causing the death of deceased Ramniwas falls flat as there is a clear contradiction in the Postmortem report (Ex.-P/2) and the testimony of PW-2 Dr. V.K. Garg. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 further observes that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondents under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 323 & 323/149 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. 14.1 Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, and also the fact that the important witnesses have turned hostile during the trial as well as the contradictions in the testimony of PW-3 and the testimony of PW-2 Dr. V.K. Garg read alongwith the postmortem report (Ex.-P/2), this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court. 15. Moreover, 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. 16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 17. However, while keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused-respondents Ugma Ram S/o Shri Jaggannath, Vimla W/o Shri Babu Lal, Raju Devi W/o Ugma Ram and Kunna Ram S/o Shri Ugma Ram are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each 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-respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as they would be called upon to do so. 18. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.