JUDGMENT : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State laying a challenge to the judgment dated 27.11.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.16/96 (State Vs. Premaram & Ors.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges against them under Sections 148, 302 & 302/149 IPC, while giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1996 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998. 3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State, are that on 28.02.1996, Bhanwar Singh (PW-2) submitted an oral report before the Reserve (Aarakshi) Centre, Mahajan, District Bikaner, which, to the extent necessary for the present adjudication, was to the effect that on the said date, when Bhanwar Singh and one Ugam Singh reached near the field of one Poonam Singh at Beed Sangreyo, Roop Singh (son of the complainant), came out from the said field, and informed that the accused-respondents armed with barchi, axe and lathis, in the field of Poonam Singh, were subjecting his uncle Gopal Singh (deceased) to beatings. 3.1. Thereupon, Bhanwar Singh alongwith Ugam Singh and Roop Singh rushed towards the place of incident and found Gopal Singh lying on the ground and the accused-respondents armed with the aforesaid weapons were beating Gopal Singh. Even upon seeing the members of the complainant party, the accused-respondent Prem inflicted blow by barchi upon Gopal Singh, accused-respondent Lixmanram inflicted axe blow on the head of Gopal Singh and the rest of the accused-respondents also inflicted lathi blows upon Gopal Singh; the same resulted into blood oozing from the respective body parts of his body. 3.2. Upon hearing the shouts of the complainant party, the accused-respondents fled away from the spot, while saying that the said act was a reaction to the act of Gopal Singh in defaming the family of the accused-respondents. As per the aforesaid report, consequent to the said incident, Gopal Singh became unconscious and later on succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused-respondents. 3.3. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused-respondents before the concerned Magistrate under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC. As per the aforesaid report, consequent to the said incident, Gopal Singh became unconscious and later on succumbed to the injuries inflicted by the accused-respondents. 3.3. On the basis of the aforementioned information, a case was registered and after investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused-respondents before the concerned Magistrate under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC. Since offences charged against the accused-respondents are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bikaner, from where the case was transferred for due trial to the learned Trial Court. 3.4. The learned Trial Court framed the charges against accused-respondent Lixmanram under Sections 148 & 302 IPC and against others (namely, Premram, Kaluram, Kishanram, and Bajranglal) under Sections 148 & 302/149 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. 3.5. During the course of trial, 12 prosecution witnesses were produced and documents Ex. P. 1-22A were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; whereas on behalf of the defence, one witness was produced and 3 documents were exhibited. Whereafter the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the criminal case in question. 3.6. 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 27.11.1997, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- State. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law by acquitting the accused-respondents despite there being clear medical evidence as well as the testimony of PW.5 Dr. Rajendra Prasad who conducted and prepared the postmortem report, which supports the prosecution case, and stated that the head injury so sustained is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. 4.1. It was further submitted that the said incident in question was witnessed by PW.2 Bhanwar Singh, PW.3 Ugam Singh and PW.4 Roop Singh and that their testimonies were to the same effect, with regard to happening of the incident in question and the same thereby, have further supported the prosecution case. 4.1. It was further submitted that the said incident in question was witnessed by PW.2 Bhanwar Singh, PW.3 Ugam Singh and PW.4 Roop Singh and that their testimonies were to the same effect, with regard to happening of the incident in question and the same thereby, have further supported the prosecution case. However, it has been clearly discarded by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the said eyewitnesses were the interested witnesses and that their testimonies cannot be relied upon. Thus, as per learned counsel, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4.2. It was also submitted that the last version as given by the deceased to his brother PW.2, upon his arrival at the place of incident, clearly describes the incident, and identities the persons involved in the crime in question. This is more so when, such version of the deceased was free from any external influence and given to PW.2 in the presence of PW.3 and PW.4. 4.3 It was further submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have been consistent throughout the trial, though with minor contradictions, as to the presence of trees at the place of incident. In the present case, the deceased’s last version of the incident given to his family members, who in the ordinary sense ought to have been present there, cannot be discarded solely on the basis of the same being given to the natural/interested witnesses. 4.4. It was further submitted that a minor contradiction in the testimony of PW. 4 Roop Singh, to the effect that he fainted on seeing the incident in question, and that the said version did not form part of the depositions made by PW. 2 and PW.3, does not have any adverse effect on the incident in question. Therefore discarding whole of the testimony of PW. 4 on the basis of the same, is not justified in law. 4.5. It was also submitted that the crime in question was committed in a pre-planned manner, with a clear motive to kill Gopal Singh (deceased), which was verified by him, in the last version as well as by an eyewitness PW.4, wherein both of them took the names of the accused-respondents to be the persons, who committed the murder in question. Learned counsel further submitted that the present case is a fit case based on direct evidence. 4.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the present case is a fit case based on direct evidence. 4.6. It was further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts, supported by the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and other witnesses, medical evidence, motive and the chain of events, which all together prove the prosecution story. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondent, while opposing the submissions made on behalf the appellant-State, submitted that as per the prosecution story, the eyewitnesses, namely PW. 2, PW. 3 and PW. 4, were present at the place of incident at the relevant time, however their statements were not recorded by the investigating authority in the first instance, and that the same were recorded after delay; which casts a shadow of doubt upon the prosecution story. 5.1. It was further submitted that from the medical evidence, it is not borne out with certainty, as to what was the cause of the death in question, and a mere possibility has been reflected therein. As per the testimony of PW. 5 Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the deceased sustained 6 injuries and the death in question was opined to have caused ‘possibly’ due to the head injury; however, it was further stated that there was no fracture in the skull, and that the death in the similar circumstances can also be caused due to blood thinning resulting from snake bite and subsequently, brain hemorrhage. 5.2. It was also submitted that the recoveries of the weapon (i.e., axe, lathi and spear) made during the investigation, were sent for FSL, however they were inconclusive as after the examination of the same, the presence of human blood was found, but there is nothing on record which could show that the same was that of the deceased. 5.3. It was further submitted that the last version of the deceased as relied upon by the prosecution, has been in contradiction with the testimonies of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 with respect to the aspect of sudden attack by the accused persons who were hiding in the ‘Kheep Trees’. It was further submitted that Ex.P.- 5 Naksha Mauka prepared in the present case, does not indicate the presence of the said trees at the site of incident. 5.4. It was further submitted that Ex.P.- 5 Naksha Mauka prepared in the present case, does not indicate the presence of the said trees at the site of incident. 5.4. It was also submitted that the said eyewitnesses qua their testimonies showcase that they waited for 5 minutes at the place of incident, and witnessed the occurrence of the incident, which is highly improbable, more particularly, when the deceased and the witnesses belonged to the same family. It was further submitted that the said eyewitnesses made no attempt to catch the accused-respondents nor did they make any endeavour to rescue Gopal Singh from the clutches of the accused-respondents. 5.5. It was further submitted that PW.4 Roop Singh, who was present at the site of incident, along with the deceased, contradicted the testimonies of the other eyewitnesses and that he also has sustained no injury in the said attack even though he was accompanying the deceased, which in the given circumstances, casts doubt on the prosecution case. It was also submitted that the narration of the incident by PW. 4 to PW. 2 and 3, who later reached the place in question, shows that PW.2 and PW. 3, were not eyewitnesses, rather chance witnesses; which further gives an impression of PW. 4 being a planted witness. 5.6. It was also submitted that the recoveries made in the case were made in the presence of motbirs who were interested witnesses. It was further submitted that the FSL report of the examination of the blood stained weapons have not been put on record and therefore in the absence of an essential evidence, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case as placed before us. 7. This Court observes that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 27.11.1997 acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges against them under Sections 148, 302 & 302/149 IPC, against which the appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal. 8. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case as placed before us. 7. This Court observes that the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment dated 27.11.1997 acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges against them under Sections 148, 302 & 302/149 IPC, against which the appellant-State has preferred the instant appeal. 8. This Court further observes that the PW.2-complainant (brother of the deceased), lodged an oral report, informing about the said incident wherein his brother Gopal Singh (deceased) was beaten to death by a group of five accused persons i.e. the accused-respondents who at the relevant time were armed with deadly weapons and that the said incident was witnessed by three eyewitnesses who belonged to the deceased’s family. 9. This Court also observes that there are three eyewitnesses to the said incident in question, namely, PW.2 Bhanwar Singh, PW. 3 Ugam Singh and PW.4 Roop Singh. 9.1. The eyewitness PW.2 Bhanwar Singh (brother of deceased), lodged an FIR Ex.P.-4 before the Police Station Mahajan, Bikaner (which is about 10 kms from the place of incident) at around 6:15 p.m. on the date of incident itself, which had occurred at around 5 p.m. and that the said report, was based on the last version of the deceased and the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, which clearly stated that the five accused persons namely, Prema, Kaluram, Bajranglal, Lakshman and Kishan, were hiding behind the Kheep trees and attacked Gopal Singh (deceased), with axe, spear and lathi, when he was going for cattle grazing, towards Rohi Bheedh Sangrehu. 10. This Court further observes that as per the testimony of PW.5 Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who conducted and prepared the postmortem report (Ex.P.- 13), the deceased Gopal Singh, sustained six injuries, out of which one injury on head was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death in question. However, the testimony of PW.5 also states that cerebral hemorrhage which is the cause of death, can also be caused by a snake bite and the resultant high blood pressure. Thus, the divergent view as to the medical evidence placed on record and the testimony of the medical expert, though states the cause of death to be the same, the second view of the same being presumptuous, could not have been entirely discarded. 11. Thus, the divergent view as to the medical evidence placed on record and the testimony of the medical expert, though states the cause of death to be the same, the second view of the same being presumptuous, could not have been entirely discarded. 11. This Court also observes that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses have numerous contradictions, which make them unworthy of inducing confidence of this Court; some of which have been enumerated as follows: (i) The fact that the accused persons were hidden in the Kheep trees before the attack in question, as mentioned by Gopal Singh (deceased) in his last statement, was missing in the FIR. This important detail of the incident was missed by PW. 2, and the same casts a doubt as to the credibility of the incident narrated by the prosecution and the testimonies of its witnesses thereto. (ii) As per the statements of PW.3, the accused persons after the said incident, ran towards the farm of one Ishwar Jat; on the other hand the testimony of PW.4 reveals that the accused persons ran towards Mokhampur. Yet again, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are contradictory, as to the direction in which the accused persons fled after committing the alleged crime. (iii) PW.4 stated that the accused persons fled from the spot by the time the said witness reached the place of occurrence, and thus, they could not catch hold of them; however, PW.3 and PW.2 who accompanied the PW.4 stated in their testimony that the accused persons were surrounding Gopal Singh (deceased) and were giving beatings to him. Neither did the said witnesses try to rescue the deceased from the attack nor did they have any word with the accused-respondents, before they fled away from the spot. (iv) PW.3 and PW.4 in their testimonies stated that the injury caused by the axe was on the back of the shoulder, however PW. 4 stated of not witnessing any injury on the back of the shoulder. (v) PW.2 and PW.3 stated in their testimonies that the dead body Gopal Singh was lying inside the farm of one Poonam Singh; however PW.4 contradicted them by stating that the said dead body was found lying on the way that goes towards their village. 4 stated of not witnessing any injury on the back of the shoulder. (v) PW.2 and PW.3 stated in their testimonies that the dead body Gopal Singh was lying inside the farm of one Poonam Singh; however PW.4 contradicted them by stating that the said dead body was found lying on the way that goes towards their village. 11.1.This Court observes in the light of the above-mentioned contradictions, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses in the said case, weakens the prosecution case, thereby entitling them to the benefit of doubt, in the given circumstances, as done by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment of acquittal. 12. This Court further observes that though people gathered at the place of the incident at the relevant time, the statements of the said persons were not recorded by the concerned investigating officer, which shows discrepancies in as to the procedure adopted during the course of investigation, thereby further weakening the prosecution case, more particularly, when there was not even a single independent witness produced by the prosecution. 13. This Court also observes as per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, prior to reporting of the incident in question by PW.4-Roop Singh, PW.2 & PW.3 had tea with one Bhanwarji, Kasam and Ramchandra. However those persons were not produced by the prosecution during the trial. It is also observed that Farukhuddin, the second investigating officer, who was also the recovery witness of the alleged weapons, was also not produced. 14. This Court also observes that the place of incident was nearest to the dhani of one Jagdish (about 70 pavda) however, no one came from the said dhani at the relevant time, nor did the investigating authorities examine Jagdish who resided near the said place. 15. This Court further observes that the incident in question occurred on 28.02.1996 and the postmortem was conducted the next day; wherein it is opined that the death occurred 24 to 48 hours prior to the incident, which suggests the death to have taken place either on 27.02.1996 or 28.02.1996. The medical evidence does not support the testimonies of witnesses and the prosecution story and thereby makes the prosecution case doubtful. Thus in the presence of such varying evidences and testimonies, the liability of the offence in question, cannot be fastened upon the accused-respondents. 16. The medical evidence does not support the testimonies of witnesses and the prosecution story and thereby makes the prosecution case doubtful. Thus in the presence of such varying evidences and testimonies, the liability of the offence in question, cannot be fastened upon the accused-respondents. 16. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chuhar Singh v. State of Haryana, (1976) 1 SCC 879 , wherein it was held that “what is important is not how many witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but what is the nature and quality of evidence on which it relies. The evidence of a single witness may sustain a sentence of death whereas a host of vulnerable witnesses may fail to support a simple charge of hurt. Since the case must stand or fall by the evidence of single witness, it is necessary to examine that evidence critically”. 16.1.In the case at hand, this Court finds that the presence of three eyewitnesses could have been the sole basis for conviction of the accused-respondents, but for the contradicting material facts of the incident, which further varied from the alleged last version of the deceased and the FIR lodged by PW.2. 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. 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 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. 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 favor 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. Thus, this Court has taken into due consideration the entire evidence, the contradictory testimonies of the eyewitnesses PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4, the lacunae in the prosecution case, absence of independent witness, differing opinion of the medical experts qua that of the eyewitnesses, absence of sufficient proof on the part of the prosecution to establish motive/intention of the accused-respondents to commit the crime in question, coupled with absence of any cogent evidence with regard to existence of enmity, between the accused-respondents and Gopal Singh (deceased). 19. This Court thus observes that the impugned judgment of acquittal is justified as being in accordance with the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above-mentioned 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 the examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence. 20. 20. This Court further observes that the scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment demonstrates a legally plausible view, and that a mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal if the 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. 21. Thus, in the 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. 22. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. 22.1.However, keeping in view of the provision of Section 437 A Cr.P.C./ 481 B.N.S.S., 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. 22.2. All pending applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned forthwith.