JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment dated 28.08.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.127/95 whereby the accused-respondent Kabiya was acquitted of the charges against him under Sections 302, 341 & 323/34 IPC and accused-respondents Hunjiya and Kalu were acquitted under Sections 302/34, 323 & 341 IPC. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1994 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 08.12.1994 at around 7:45 p.m., Hariyaram (PW-1 complainant), submitted an oral report (Ex.P.-1) at Police Station, Kotda. As per the said report, when the complainant returned to his house at Nichli Subri, his brother Saka (PW-3) informed him that on the said day, the accused-respondents, at around 5:00 p.m. came from the side of Kotda and tried to take away the cows of Kuka (PW-13). Thereupon, Kuka started shouting, and on hearing the same, Saka reached the spot and intervened the said act of the accused-respondents. In course of the same, Saka was caught hold of by accused-respondent Hujiya and an injury on the forehead of PW.3 was caused by accused-Kalu using a stone. 4. Thereafter, Bhaga (deceased-who was uncle of PW.3), Bhojiya PW.6 (elder son of deceased), Bhima PW.10 (younger son of deceased) and Vaja PW. 11, reached the place of incident and intervened, whereupon accused-respondent Kabiya stabbed Bhaga in the chest with a ‘churi’ (Knife) and fled from the spot; Bhaga (deceased) tried to chase Kabiya, in course whereof, Bhaga fell down and succumbed to the injuries. 5. On the basis of the aforementioned information, an FIR No. 124/94 at Police Station, Kotda was registered and the investigation commenced accordingly. After investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 341, 323 & 302 read with Section 34 IPC. 6. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Kabiya under Sections 302, 341 and 323/34, and against accused-respondent Hujiya and Kalu under Sections 302/34, 323 and 341 IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial commenced accordingly. 7. 6. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against the accused-respondent Kabiya under Sections 302, 341 and 323/34, and against accused-respondent Hujiya and Kalu under Sections 302/34, 323 and 341 IPC; the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, which they denied and claimed to stand due trial and the trial commenced accordingly. 7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and got exhibited 22 exhibits in support of their case; whereas the defence examined 1 witness in support of its case, whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the said criminal case in question. 8. 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 the accused-respondents, vide the impugned judgment dated 28.08.1997, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State. 9. Learned counsel Mr. C.S. Ojha, AGA, appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused-respondents despite there being a clear medical evidence, including the postmortem report, which supports the prosecution’s case, in the manner that the injury caused to the deceased was ante-mortem and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death in question. 9.1. Learned counsel further submitted that in their testimonies, the eyewitnesses, namely, Saka PW.3, Bhoja PW.6 and Bhima PW.10 have completely supported the prosecution case and that their testimonies have been corroborated by PW.12 Dr. O.P. Mahatma; but the same have been discarded by the learned Trial Court on the basis of minor contradictions, which were bound to arise in the given circumstances; furthermore, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to the said incident in question, could not have been discarded merely because they belonged to the same family. 9.2. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the report and the testimonies of the witness, the dispute between the parties began, when PW.3 saw the accused-respondents stealing the cattle belonging to PW.13, which in turn shows the motive on the part of accused-respondents to steal and thereafter cause such an injury which was sufficient to cause death; the same has further been supported by the other prosecution witnesses, however the same, has been repudiated by the learned Trial Court. 9.3. 9.3. Learned counsel further submitted that though the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, PW.3 and PW.10, show that there were more people involved in the said incident, however the involvement of the present accused-respondents cannot be disregarded completely, when the eyewitnesses have testified against them, and that the learned Trial Court has certainly failed to consider this material aspect of the matter and have acquitted the accused- respondents, which is not justified in law. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. M.C. Bishnoi assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi, appearing for the accused-respondents, while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submitted that the report was lodged by PW. 1, after prolonged anticipation and improvements made to it. The fact that despite the incident taking place at about 5 p.m., it was reported only after the arrival of PW.1 at about 7:45 p.m., even when the other relatives, including sons of the deceased were present and were having knowledge of the incident, at the relevant time. 10.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR (Ex.P.-7) lodged by PW.1 was entirely based on the information given to him by PW. 3 Saka, however, the testimonies of both PW. 1 and PW. 3 contradict each other on various occasions and therefore it casts a shadow on the genuineness of the contents of FIR as well as the prosecution story. 10.2.Learned counsel also submitted that most of the witnesses produced by the prosecution in support of its case, are relatives and family members of the deceased and therefore they were interested witnesses and cannot be relied upon. It was further submitted that despite there being about 50 people at the place of incident at the relevant time, only one independent witness, i.e., PW.11 Vaja, was produced by the prosecution, who was later on declared to be hostile and therefore it shatters the prosecution case, in the event of contradictory statements of the eyewitnesses. 10.3. Learned counsel further submitted that there has been a contradiction as to the direction in which the deceased and the accused-respondents were facing, at the relevant time. As per the testimony of PW. 3 Bhima, Bhaga (deceased) and the accused-respondents were facing in the same direction, i.e., north, however, as per the testimony of PW. 10, both the deceased and accused-respondents were facing in the south direction. It was further submitted that PW. 12 Dr. As per the testimony of PW. 3 Bhima, Bhaga (deceased) and the accused-respondents were facing in the same direction, i.e., north, however, as per the testimony of PW. 10, both the deceased and accused-respondents were facing in the south direction. It was further submitted that PW. 12 Dr. O.P. Mahatma, has opined that the injury was caused by a sharp knife like weapon, and that it had been caused by someone standing in front of the deceased. In the given circumstances, the testimonies of the witnesses come out to be made up after prolonged thinking, improvements and therefore they cannot be relied upon. 10.4. Learned Counsel further submitted that Vaja PW. 11, was the sole independent witness produced by the prosecution, regardless of it being a well populated village and there being about 50 persons gathered on the spot. It was further submitted that as per the testimonies of PW. 11 and PW. 13 Kuka started abusing the accused-respondents, whereafter a fight commenced, and in the continuation of it PW. 3 shot an arrow from the bow, which injured the deceased, who succumbed to the said injury. 10.5. Learned counsel also submitted that PW. 7 Meera (daughter of the deceased), was a made up as a witness and thus, is not reliable. It was further submitted that the prosecution in an attempt to prove its case, has made multiple improvements in the statements of the prosecution witnesses on various occasions, and therefore, in the light of the same, the learned Trial Court after considering and examining every aspect of the case, has rightly acquitted the accused- respondents of the charges against them. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 12. This Court observes that PW. 1 complainant filed the aforesaid report on the basis of the information conveyed to him by his brother PW. 3, on the basis of which a case was registered and investigation began and thereafter, the trial commenced accordingly. The learned Trial Court after conducting the trial against the present accused- respondents under the aforementioned provisions, acquitted them of all charges against them, vide the impugned judgment dated 28.08.1997. 13. This Court further observes that the eyewitnesses to the incident, namely, Saka PW. 3, Bhoja PW. 6, and Bhima PW. The learned Trial Court after conducting the trial against the present accused- respondents under the aforementioned provisions, acquitted them of all charges against them, vide the impugned judgment dated 28.08.1997. 13. This Court further observes that the eyewitnesses to the incident, namely, Saka PW. 3, Bhoja PW. 6, and Bhima PW. 10, though were present at the relevant time, differ in their statements on various occasions and that their testimonies, have been discarded by the learned Trial Court, due to contradictions thereby weakening the chain of events and the order in which they stated to have occurred; their statements were rather improved versions so as to falsely implicate the accused respondents. 13.1.This Court also observes the presence of contradictions in the testimonies of PW.3, PW.6 and PW.10. For instance: (i) PW. 10 stated that accused-respondent Kabiya caused injury with the knife and then accused-respondent Kalu causing injury to PW.3 with stone. However, the FIR shows an occurrence which is contrary to the aforementioned stance. (ii) PW. 3 stated that when the accused caused the knife injury, the deceased as well as the accused were facing towards north, while on the other hand, PW. 10 stated them to be facing towards south. Both these testimonies do not match with the medical evidence presented on record, which supported by the statement of PW. 12 who opined, that the deceased and the accused were facing each other, when the said injury was caused, after examining the chest injury. (iii) Both PW. 6 and PW. 10, are sons of the deceased. However, when questioned about the place as to where the dead body was found, they contradicted each other. PW. 6 stated that the dead body of his father was lying inside the ‘samadhi wala khet’ but later upon being questioned again, he stated that the body was lying outside the said khet; he thereafter again stated that the body was lying inside the said khet and laid serious emphasis on the same. On the other hand, PW. 10 stated that the body of his father was lying on the way, which goes from Kotda towards Subari. 13.2. This Court observes further contradictions in the statements of PW. 1 and PW. 3. PW.1 stated that upon seeing the cows (belonging to PW. 13) being tried to be taken away, PW. 13 raised an alarm and PW. 10 stated that the body of his father was lying on the way, which goes from Kotda towards Subari. 13.2. This Court observes further contradictions in the statements of PW. 1 and PW. 3. PW.1 stated that upon seeing the cows (belonging to PW. 13) being tried to be taken away, PW. 13 raised an alarm and PW. 3 alone rushed to rescue them, whereafter he was caught by the accused person and then PW.3 raised an alarm which caused the arrival of the deceased and his sons to the place of incident, followed by occurrence of the incident in question. However, PW. 3 contradicted the same by stating that the accused persons bought the stolen cattle about half a kilometer away from where they (Saka, Tola, Bhima, Bhoja and himself) freed the cattle and brought them back, thereafter the said incident occurred; this testimony of PW. 3 has been completely denied by PW. 6, son of the deceased. This Court further observes major contradictions in the statement of PW.3 which casts a shadow of the prosecution case, as they (statements of PW. 3) are the very basis of the case in question. 14. This Court also observes that upon the perusal of the testimony of PW. 12 Dr. O.P. Mahatma, the deceased sustained an injury on his chest, which resulted in his death. It was also opined by PW. 12 that in the present case, there is neither any report on record nor any medical examination has been conducted of PW. 3 Saka, who sustained an injury on his forehead. It was stated that the possibility of skipping the medical examination of PW. 3, in the event of getting injured in the same incident in which the deceased died, is extremely low; further, the injury caused to PW.3 by the accused- respondent by a stone, was not supported by PW. 11 Vaja and PW. 13 Kuka. In such circumstances, the testimonies, the FIR (based on the said testimony) and variations in the testimonies of the other witnesses, create a lacuna in the prosecution case. 15. This Court further observes that the incident in question occurred when the cattle of PW.13 was being stolen by the accused-respondents; however, PW.3 Saka casts a shadow on the presence of PW.13, who was also produced as an eyewitness to the incident in question. PW. 3 stated at an earlier occasion that PW. 15. This Court further observes that the incident in question occurred when the cattle of PW.13 was being stolen by the accused-respondents; however, PW.3 Saka casts a shadow on the presence of PW.13, who was also produced as an eyewitness to the incident in question. PW. 3 stated at an earlier occasion that PW. 13 raised an alarm; however at a later stage, stated that PW. 13 was not present at the site of incident. 16. This Court also observes that from the material available on record, it is clear that PW. 1 filed the aforesaid report at 7:45 PM, prior to which, as stated he reached his home at about 7:30 PM and was informed about the incident when his relatives were mourning, whereupon he rushed to place of incident and found the dead body. From the facts as placed, this Court finds it very unlikely that within 15 minutes of arrival, the whole information was gathered, followed by lodging of the report. This Court further finds it surprising that the dead body had been lying at the place of incident even at 7:30 PM when PW.1 went to see it, even though the incident occurred at around 5 PM and the family members were mourning at home while the body was lying unsupervised/unattended/without any person nearby. 16.1. This Court also observes that the prosecution story has its roots in the information given by PW.3 to PW.1 (Complainant) on the basis of which the case was lodged, followed by production of PW.3, PW. 6 and PW. 10 as eyewitnesses to the murder in question; however the said aspect could not be proved by the prosecution as the three important witnesses made major contradictory statements, and in that view thereof, the involvement of the present accused-respondents in the crime in question could not have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also observed that PW. 11, was the sole independent witness of the incident in question, despite the fact that at the time of incident, there were about 50 persons present; the said witness turned hostile during the trial. 17. 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. 17. 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. 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 re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. 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 re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating 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 not reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 18. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal, 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 witness 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. 19. 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, and that a 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. Thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 20. 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 in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. 21. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. However, keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./ 481 B.N.S.S., each of the accused-respondents 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-respondents, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as and when called upon to do so. 21.1.All pending applications stand disposed of. 21.1.All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.