ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. The respondents were convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’). They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that at about 7.30 a.m. on 7th May, 2002, the accused No. 3-Hai Singh who was driving a truck gave a dash to deceased-Harish Chandra. The deceased was plying a bicycle and he was proceeding with milk cans to deliver milk. After a dash was given by the truck, the deceased fell down and thereafter, all the accused persons who were there attacked him with different weapons including Tyre Lever. Thereafter, the dead body was dragged and placed beneath the tyres of the truck so as to give a colour of an accident. 5. PW-2 Amar Singh and PW-7 Har Prasad are the two eyewitnesses. Their testimony was believed by the Trial Court. However, in appeal against conviction, for the reasons which are recorded in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, the High Court came to the conclusion that their testimony is required to be discarded and that is how the High Court ultimately proceeded to acquit the accused by the impugned judgment. 6. With the help of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant (first informant), we have perused the evidence of PW-2 and PW-7. 7. As far as an appeal against acquittal is concerned, law is fairly well settled. If the Appellate Court after re-appreciating the evidence finds that the view taken by the Court which acquitted the accused is a plausible view which could have been reasonably taken on the basis of evidence on record, interference cannot be made only on the ground that another view is possible. 8. We have minutely scrutinized the evidence of PW-2 and PW-7. According to the version of PW-1, when the truck gave dash to the deceased, the accused were hiding in a nearby house. However, this statement itself is an omission as he admitted in the cross-examination that in the police statement, the version that accused were hiding in a house does not find place. According to the version of PW-1, when the truck gave dash to the deceased, the accused were hiding in a nearby house. However, this statement itself is an omission as he admitted in the cross-examination that in the police statement, the version that accused were hiding in a house does not find place. This omission is relevant and goes to the root of the matter and therefore, will amount to contradiction in view of explanation to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. PW-7 Har Prasad in his examination-in-chief did not state that the accused persons were hiding in a nearby house. His version is that after the collusion between the bicycle and truck, when the deceased fell down from the cycle, accused-Jai Singh came with the spear then accused Bhan Singh came. After the deceased got up, Bhan Sigh caught him and thereafter, five people started beating him. His statement that Bhan Singh caught the deceased is an omission as can be seen from paragraph 7 of the cross-examination. Even his statement that after Bhan Singh caught the deceased, five accused started beating him is also an omission as can be seen from paragraph 13 of his cross-examination. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the ultimate conclusion drawn by the High Court that testimony of these two witnesses cannot be believed. 10. If this finding of the High Court is plausible finding, only on the basis of alleged recovery at the instance of the accused of the alleged weapons of assault, the order of acquittal cannot be interfered with. 11. Hence, we find no error in the ultimate conclusion drawn by the High Court. 12. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. 13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.