JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted, conviction of the appellants be set-aside and they be acquitted or any other appropriate order which may be considered just and proper in the circumstances of the case may be passed.” 2. The matter pertains to an incident which occurred in the year 1989 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1993. 3. The accused-appellant laid a challenge to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.1993 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Session Case No. 10/91, whereby the present accused-appellants, have been convicted and sentence is as follows: Offence under Section(s) Sentence(s) Fine(s) 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs 100/-, in default to undergo further 2 months of rigorous imprisonment. However, vide the impugned judgment, the remaining eight accused persons, were acquitted of the charges against them. 4. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr.Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi, appearing for the accused-appellants, are that on 22.05.1988 at around 10:05 p.m., a written report (Ex.P-2) was submitted by one Karma Ram (complainant/PW-6) before the Police Station, Bheem, stating that on the said date, in the evening, the present accused-appellant-Poona Ram went to the house of Panna Ram (PW-1), to have a word with the latter in respect of an accusation on his elder brother but upon reaching PW-1 Panna Ram’s house, he was informed by P.W.-2, Sayar Bai (Panna Ram’s wife), that he was not present at home. On the way back, accused-appellant met PW-1 and they had an altercation and thereafter PW-1 left for his uncle, Pitha Ram’s house (the deceased), but he was followed by the accused-appellant. 4.1. On the way back, accused-appellant met PW-1 and they had an altercation and thereafter PW-1 left for his uncle, Pitha Ram’s house (the deceased), but he was followed by the accused-appellant. 4.1. Upon reaching the deceased’s house, the accused-appellants as well as other accused persons (acquitted), started shouting and abusing the deceased and his family; when Pitha Ram (deceased) came out to calm down the agitated group, the accused-appellants raised a cry to kill Pitha Ram as he was trying to be a counsellor pertaining to the dispute; upon the same, the group comprising Om Prakash, Khema Ram, Kesa Ram, Raju Ram, Smt. Gomi, Smt.Kanku Devi, Smt. Raji Devi, Smt. Soni and Smt. Geeta Devi attacked Pitha Ram, armed with stones & lathis, attacked the deceased. Such an act was intervened by PW-1 Panna Ram, PW-2 Shayari Bai, PW-3 Tulsi Ram, PW-4 Mohan Singh, PW-6 Karma Ram, D.W-1 Deva Ram and one other person i.e. Jetha Ram. As a result of the same, Pitha Ram succumbed to the injuries at his home. 4.2. On the basis of the aforementioned report, the police registered a case (Ex.P-3) for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 323 I.P.C. and thereafter the investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under the aforesaid provisions of IPC. 4.3. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against 10 accused persons under Sections 147, 302/149, 323/149 IPC; the said charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial and trial commenced accordingly. 4.4. During the course of trial, the evidence of 14 prosecution witnesses were recorded and 20 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, 1 witness was produced and 2 documents were exhibited, whereafter, the accused- appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty by denying the charges framed against them, pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question. 4.5. Thereafter, upon hearing the contentions of both the parties as well as considering the material and evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court, acquitted 8 accused persons of the charges against them; but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.05.1993, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. 5. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused-appellants submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the inconsistencies in the prosecution story, before passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused-appellants, on the basis of the same evidence, on which the other eight accused persons, who have been attributed the similar role in the crime in question as that of the present accused-appellants, were acquitted vide the impugned judgment. 5.1. It was further submitted that as per the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. P-20), the deceased sustained 4 simple injuries suggested to have been caused by a blunt weapon, which cannot be said to have been caused after pre-meditation, and were not sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of circumstances. 5.2. It was also submitted that the prosecution story is under the shadow of doubt also on the count that by no stretch of imagination, it can be believed that a large group comprising 10 person, that too armed with lathis and stones, could have caused only four injuries, as claimed by the prosecution, and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court: (a) State vs Goru & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1986, decided on 06.08.2009) (b) Bhaguram & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeals No. 705 of 1973 and 271 of 1974, decided on 27.10.1983) 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-appellants, submitted that the accused-appellant’s participation in the crime in question is apparent on the face of the record and evidence placed on record before the learned Trial Court, and thus, the impugned judgment passed after due appreciation thereof, does not warrant any interference in the instant appeal. 6.1. It was also submitted that the eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Panna Ram, PW- 2 Sayri Bai, PW-3 Tulsi Ram, PW-4 Mohan Singh, PW-6 Karma Ram and PW-11 Smt. Lehri, in their testimonies, completely supported the prosecution story, thereby amply proved the prosecution case regarding involvement of the accused-appellants in commission of the crime in question, beyond all reasonable doubts. 6.2. It was also submitted that the eye witnesses i.e. PW-1 Panna Ram, PW- 2 Sayri Bai, PW-3 Tulsi Ram, PW-4 Mohan Singh, PW-6 Karma Ram and PW-11 Smt. Lehri, in their testimonies, completely supported the prosecution story, thereby amply proved the prosecution case regarding involvement of the accused-appellants in commission of the crime in question, beyond all reasonable doubts. 6.2. It was further submitted that the present accused-appellants had the motive to kill the deceased as accused-appellant-Poona Ram was having an illicit relationship with the daughter-in-law of the deceased. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 8. This Court observes that in the present case, after conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as above, in connection with the murder of Pitha Ram (deceased), vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, while acquitting the other eight accused persons. 9. This Court observes that there were six eyewitnesses to the incident in question i.e. PW.1-Panna Ram, PW.2-Sayri Bai, PW.3-Tulsi Ram, PW.4-Mohan Singh, PW.6-Karma Ram and PW-11 Lehri; as per the testimony of PW-1. Apart from the act of the accused-appellants, the other accused persons also caused injuries to the deceased with stones, lathis, kick and punch; the testimonies of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-11 were also to the same effect as that of PW-1. 9.1. Furthermore, PW.3 stated that other accused person-Khuma Ram, and one other person knocked down the deceased, while accused-appellant Soni caused injury to the deceased. 9.2. This Court also observes that the some of the persons, who have been claimed to be the eyewitnesses, were rather the interested witnesses, being members of the same family. 10. This Court further observes most of the prosecution witnesses made similar depositions about involvement of the accused-appellants (convicted) as well as the other accused persons, who were acquitted vide the impugned judgment. This Court also observes that one lathi was recovered by the police on the basis of the information given by accused-appellant-Soni, but nothing else was recovered from the other accused-persons as well as accused-appellant-Poona Ram. 11. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogarani Vs. 11. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yogarani Vs. State by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 477/2017, decided on 23.09.2024), as hereunder-: “10. The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons. In the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v State of Gujarat reported in 2023 INSC 829 , this court has held that: “15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.” In the case on hand, allegations against the appellant being the same as made against Accused No.3 & 4, the Courts below could not have convicted the Appellant while acquitting the other two.” 12. This Court further observes that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, when seen in conjunction with the other evidence available on record, make it clear that on one hand, on the basis of such evidence, the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced, while on the other hand, other eight accused persons, on the basis of the same evidence and in the similar circumstances, were acquitted vide the impugned judgment, which clearly shows that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error of law in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellants, vide the impugned judgment, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. This Court also observes that as per the testimony of PW-12 Dr. Babu Lal, who conducted postmortem of the body of the deceased, the injuries No. 1 and 2 which caused death of the deceased were simple in nature and in the given circumstances could not have been caused by a pre-meditation or by a mere fall or any other external factor. 14. Babu Lal, who conducted postmortem of the body of the deceased, the injuries No. 1 and 2 which caused death of the deceased were simple in nature and in the given circumstances could not have been caused by a pre-meditation or by a mere fall or any other external factor. 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 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:- “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. 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 also observes that in the given circumstances, the acquittal of the other eight accused persons and conviction of the present accused-appellants by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the same material on record, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, as well as in view of the aforementioned precedent laws, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.1993 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Session Case No.10/91, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The accused-appellants are on bail; their bail bonds stand discharged. 17.1. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused-appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. The accused-appellants are on bail; their bail bonds stand discharged. 17.1. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the accused-appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each and a surety bond each 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-appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as and when called upon to do so. 17.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.