JUDGMENT : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) : 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this appeal of the accused appellant may kindly be allowed and the accused appellant may be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he be set at liberty.” 2. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No.121/12 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajmal), whereby the present accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as below: Conviction under Section Sentence Fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo further 6 months’ S.I. However, due to lack of evidence, the accused-appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 323 IPC, vide the impugned judgment. 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, on 15.09.2012, Kanti (complainant & PW.12) gave an oral information to the police that last night (14.09.2012) at around 12 o'clock, when he and his son were sleeping in the house, from neighbourhood they heard the accused-appellant Ajmal, shouting and threatening his wife and children that he (accused-appellant) would kill them; whereupon, the wife of the accused-appellant alongwith her younger son Prakash, came to the house of the complainant, to save themselves from the accused-appellant. 3.1. It was further stated that the complainant and his son (Mohan) went to the accused-appellant’s house and upon reaching there, they asked the accused-appellant to stop shouting and have some food and sleep quietly, whereupon the accused-appellant hit the complainant on left side of his shoulder with a stick and asked the complainant and his son to run away; the accused-appellant (in drunken state), at that very moment, came with a sword (talwar) in his hand and attacked his (accused-appellant’s) daughter Ruchita who was sleeping on a cot, and killed her; thereafter, the accused-appellant tried to attack the complainant party, whereupon, the complainant and his son (Mohan) and Kamla (wife of accused-appellant/mother of deceased) ran away. Being aware of such a fearful environment, the father of the accused-appellant and other neighbours did not reach the place of incident. 3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, FIR No.179/2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 302 & 323 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. Being aware of such a fearful environment, the father of the accused-appellant and other neighbours did not reach the place of incident. 3.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, FIR No.179/2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 302 & 323 IPC and the investigation commenced accordingly. After due investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 & 323 IPC. 3.3. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 323 IPC, the same upon being read over to the accused-appellant, were denied by him and he claimed trial, and the trial accordingly commenced. 3.4. During the trial, the prosecution produced 15 witnesses and exhibited documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-29). The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein while pleading not guilty, the accused stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. 3.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, convicted and sentenced the present accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2013, against which the present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant. However, vide the same impugned judgment, accused-appellant was acquitted under Section 323 IPC, as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the eye witnesses namely PW.5-Kamla, PW.4-Mohan & PW.12-Kanti (Complainant) have turned hostile during trial. It was further submitted that the other prosecution witnesses namely PW.1-Shanti, PW.3-Gautam & PW.6-Heera, have also turned hostile. 4.1 It was also submitted that the police authority recovered the sword (talwar used for commit the crime in question) and that the recovery witnesses (motbirs) PW.2-Varshanga and PW.14-Naku have also turned hostile and therefore, the trustworthiness of the said witnesses is doubtful. 4.2 It was further submitted that the remaining witnesses of prosecution were not relevant for the case and the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction only on the basis of the recovery of sword and FSL report which were not sufficient in themselves for conviction of the accused-appellant. 4.3 It was also submitted that prosecution failed to prove the murder of the deceased committed by the accused-appellant, more particularly, when no eye witness supported prosecution version, and therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellant vide the impugned judgment. 4.3 It was also submitted that prosecution failed to prove the murder of the deceased committed by the accused-appellant, more particularly, when no eye witness supported prosecution version, and therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in convicting the accused-appellant vide the impugned judgment. 4.4 It was further submitted that the accused-appellant is behind the bars for last more than 12 years. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellant, submitted that the accused-appellant caused the death of the deceased by using a sword; the said sword was recovered from house of the accused-appellant by the police authority on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellant himself under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was further submitted that the recovery memo (Fard) Ex.P-7 was prepared and all necessary procedure was followed by the police authority during the course of investigation. 5.1 It was also submitted that the blood detected from the said sword was sent for FSL, and as per the FSL Report, “B” group blood was found on the said sword, which matched with the deceased’s blood and the blood detected on the clothes of the deceased. 5.2 It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court after considering the investigation report as well as other material evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment of the conviction under Section 302 IPC, which is justified in law. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 7. This Court observes that in the present case, the allegation against the accused-appellant is that he committed the murder of the deceased, who was his daughter aged 4 years old at the time of incident; during the investigation, it was found that the accused-appellant committed the crime in question and after conclusion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the accused-appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced as above. 8. 8. This Court further observes that there were three eye witnesses in the present case namely PW.5-Kamla, who is wife of accused-appellant and mother of deceased, PW.12- Kanti, who is Uncle of the deceased (complainant in the present case), and PW.4-Mohan (son of PW.12 & cousin of the accused) but all three eye witnesses have turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution story. 9. This Court also observes that the other prosecution witnesses PW.1-Shanti (father of accused), PW.3-Gautam (brother of accused), and PW.6- Heera (uncle of accused), have also turned hostile during the trial. This Court further observes that all hostile witnesses were either immediate family members of the accused-appellant or his relatives. 10. This Court also observes that the learned Trial Court in impugned judgment strongly relied upon the recovery of sword, that was recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused-appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the presence of the witnesses (motbirs), but the said motbirs PW.2-Varshanga and PW.14-Naku have turned hostile during the trial and did not support any kind of recovery in their presence. 11. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court in impugned judgment relied upon the injuries report (Ex.P/15) and testimony of the PW.9- Dr. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary, wherein it was stated that the deceased died due to injury on head and the same could have been caused by any sharp weapon; learned Trial Court also relied on FSL report (Ex.P/29) wherein the same blood group was found on deceased’s clothes as well as the sword (weapon), but PW.14, who was also witness (motbir) of the recovery of Frock (cloth of deceased), Naksh Mauka, recovery of blood stained Godare, had turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution case. 12. At this juncture this Court appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Radhe Shyam & Anr Vs State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010, decided on 12.04.2023), as hereunder: “9. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused. The conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged recovery. 10. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under impugned judgments and orders is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The appeal is accordingly, allowed.” 13. This Court also observes that all the important witnesses of the prosecution including eyewitnesses and complainant have turned hostile and the impugned judgment of conviction was passed only on the basis of recovery and FSL report, but there was no other sufficient evidence for convicting the accused-appellant. 14. This Court further observes that when the judgment of conviction is challenged before the Appellate Court, a proper appreciation of the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court has to be made. The power of the Appellate Court is provided under Section 386(b) of Cr.PC, which reads as under:- “386. Powers of the Appellate Court.— (b) in an appeal from a conviction— (i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial, or (ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or (iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.” 14.1. This Court further observes that as provided under Section 386(b)(i) Cr.P.C., the Appellate Court has the power to reverse the findings of the conviction, so as to acquit the accused. 15. Now, as regards, the scope of interference in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 15 SCC 263 , as hereunder:- “9. 15. Now, as regards, the scope of interference in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court, it is considered appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 15 SCC 263 , as hereunder:- “9. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that though it may be difficult to state that the judgment suffers from sans reasons, yet it is not at all difficult to say that the reasons ascribed are really apology for reasons. If we allow ourselves to say so, one may ascribe certain reasons which seem to be reasons but the litmus test is to give seemly and condign reasons either to sustain or overturn the judgment. The filament of reasoning must logically flow from requisite analysis, but, unfortunately, the said exercise has not been carried out. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision in Padam Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 1 SCC 621 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 285], wherein a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the duty of the appellate court, has expressed thus: (SCC p. 625, para 2) “2. … It is the duty of an appellate court to look into the evidence adduced in the case and arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon, then whether the prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt on the said evidence. The credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. It must be remembered that the appellate court, like the trial court, has to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true and the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as the presumption of innocence with which the accused starts, continues right through until he is held guilty by the final Court of Appeal and that presumption is neither strengthened by an acquittal nor weakened by a conviction in the trial court.” (emphasis supplied) 10. In Rama v. State of Rajasthan [ (2002) 4 SCC 571 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 829], the Court has stated about the duty of the appellate court in the following terms: (SCC p. 572, para 4) “4. … It is well settled that in a criminal appeal, a duty is enjoined upon the appellate court to reappraise the evidence itself and it cannot proceed to dispose of the appeal upon appraisal of evidence by the trial court alone especially when the appeal has been already admitted and placed for final hearing. Upholding such a procedure would amount to negation of valuable right of appeal of an accused, which cannot be permitted under law.” 12. Recently, a three-Judge Bench in Majjal v. State of Haryana [ (2013) 6 SCC 798 ] has ruled thus: (SCC p. 800, para 7) “7. It was necessary for the High Court to consider whether the trial court's assessment of the evidence and its opinion that the appellant must be convicted deserve to be confirmed. This exercise is necessary because the personal liberty of an accused is curtailed because of the conviction. The High Court must state its reasons why it is accepting the evidence on record. The High Court's concurrence with the trial court's view would be acceptable only if it is supported by reasons. In such appeals it is a court of first appeal. Reasons cannot be cryptic. By this, we do not mean that the High Court is expected to write an unduly long treatise. The judgment may be short but must reflect proper application of mind to vital evidence and important submissions which go to the root of the matter.” 16. This Court further observes that the three eye witnesses in the present case namely PW.5-Kamla, PW.12- Kanti, and PW.4-Mohan have turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution story. This Court also observes that the other important prosecution witnesses PW.1-Shanti, PW.3-Gottam and PW.6- Heera have also turned hostile during the trial and the recoveries witnesses (Motbirs) PW.2-Varshanga and PW.14-Naku have also turned hostile. 17. This Court also observes that the other important prosecution witnesses PW.1-Shanti, PW.3-Gottam and PW.6- Heera have also turned hostile during the trial and the recoveries witnesses (Motbirs) PW.2-Varshanga and PW.14-Naku have also turned hostile. 17. This Court further observes that the recoveries and FSL report were not sufficient to connect the accused-appellant with the crime in question when seen in conjunction with the other evidence and also the recovery witnesses have turned hostile, and therefore, the prosecution failed to proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and that the accused-appellant was convicted under Section 323 IPC, due to lack of evidence, which amongst others, is sufficient to reverse the finding of conviction against the accused-appellant and for his acquittal under Section 302 IPC. 17.1. This Court observes that looking into the overall facts and circumstance of the case as well as evidence of case, it is a fit case to exercise the power conferred under Section 386 (2), which is pertaining to reversal of findings from conviction to acquittal. 18. It is however, made clear that though a submission has been made on behalf of the accused-appellant that the accused-appellant is behind the bars for last about 12 years, but in the given circumstances and looking into the factual matrix of the case, this Court finds no necessity to delve into the issue of prolonged custody of the accused-appellant, as the facts of the present case warrant complete acquittal of the accused-appellant. 19. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Banswara in Sessions Case No.121/2012 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Ajmal) is quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges against him. The accused-appellant is in custody; he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 19.1. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused-appellant is hereby directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned Trial court which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the accused-appellant shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as and when called upon to do so. 19.2. 19.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.