JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 18.09.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Amreli (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Session Case No. 125 of 2000. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that Hajibhai Roshanbhai Nada, the brother of the deceased Hamirbhai Roshanbhai, filed a complaint alleging that the accused kicked Hamirbhai's motorcycle, causing him to fall. The accused then stabbed Hamirbhai in the chest and beat him with a stick, resulting in his death. A child witness, Nathu, was present during the attack. The prosecution believes the motive stems from a family feud involving the marriages of Hamirbhai's daughter Shantu and the accused's niece Hawaban. The accused held a grudge against Hamirbhai, especially after the death of his brother Bhurabhai, Hawaban's father, as Hawaban was currently residing at her parents' home. 2.2 The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged with the Khamba Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, vide I-CR No. 63 of 2000. 2.3 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas, collected medical documents, and obtained the post-mortem report. Upon completion of the investigation and upon committal of the case to the Trial Court, learned Trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J.K. Shah at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 4. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. J.K. Shah at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 4. Learned Trial Judge, framed charges vide Exh.2 against the Respondents-Accused for the aforesaid offences. It appears that accused have not pleaded guilty and the prosecution has examined following 15 prosecution witnesses and also produced 16 documentary evidence, which are as under: Oral Evidence PW No. Exhibit No. Name of Witness Nature of Witness 1. 08 Hajibhai Roashanbhai Complainant 2. 10 Nathabhai Hamirbhai Son of the deceased 3. 11 Dr. Arvindbhai Ratilal Medical Officer 4. 14 Himatbhai Boghabhai Panch 5. 15 Virjibhai Palabhai Panch 6. 16 Babupari Mohanpari Panch 7. 17 Abdulbhai Sulemanbhai Panch 8. 20 Dineshbhai Nathabhai Clerk in JMFC Court 9. 22 Vistubhai Chunibhai Circle Officer, Mamlatdar Office 10. 25 Bhagubhai Gigabhai Panch 11. 26 Chandrasinh Jarubhai Panch 12. 28 Firozbhai Habibhai Panch 13. 29 Sivsankar Krupasankar Head Constable 14. 37 Ramesvardaval Mamraj Dy. S.P. Reader 15. 40 Atulkumar Rajendrasinh P.S.I. Documentary Evidences No. No. Evidence 1. 09 Complainant 2. 12 P.M. Note 3. 13 Medical Certificate 4. 21 Proclamation 5. 27 Panchanama 6. 30 Yadi of Medical Officer, Khambha 7. 31 Report of P.S.O. Kambha 8. 32 Panchnama 9. 33 Panchnama 10 34 Panchnama 11. 35 Report of P.S.I. Khambha 12 38 Arrest Panchnama 13 39 Receipt 14. 41 Copy of F.S.L. 15. 42 Receipt 16. 43 F.S.L. Report 5. We start with oral testimony of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has examined the important witness/complainant namely, Hajibhai Roashanbhai as PW-01 at Exh.08, who is brother/sibling of the deceased and the other witness, namely, Nathabhai Hamirbhai as PW-02 at Exh.10, who is son of the deceased and alleged eyewitness, to support the case of the prosecution. 6. Dr. Arvindbhai Ratilal, who had performed Post Mortem of the deceased, was also examined as PW-03 at Exhibit 11, deposed that he had medically examined the deceased and collected the samples. He identifies the certificate issued by him during the course of the medical examination of the deceased which is exhibited at Exh.12. 7. 6. Dr. Arvindbhai Ratilal, who had performed Post Mortem of the deceased, was also examined as PW-03 at Exhibit 11, deposed that he had medically examined the deceased and collected the samples. He identifies the certificate issued by him during the course of the medical examination of the deceased which is exhibited at Exh.12. 7. Himatbhai Boghabhai - PW-04 at Exh.14, Virjibhai Palabhai - PW-05 at Exh.15, Babupari Mohanpari - PW-06 at Exh.16, Abdulbhai Sulemanbhai - PW-07 at Exh.17 and Chandrasinh Jarubhai - PW-11 at Exh.26 and Firozbhai Habibhai prosecution witness no. 12 at Exhibit No. 28, who are panchs in the present case, have turned hostile and hence, the prosecution has declared them hostile. 8. In the present case Prosecution has examined Dineshbhai Nathabhai as PW-08 at Exh.20, who is Clerk in Ld. Additional District Magistrate, Amreli and Vistubhai Chunibhai - PW-09 at Exh.22, who is Circle Officer, Mamlatdar Office and Bhagubhai Gigabhai- PW-05 at Exh.25, who is panch and Sivsankar Krupasankar, who was serving as Head Constable, Khambha Police Station and Ramesvardaval Mamraj - PW-14 at Exh.37 who was serving as Dy. S.P. Reader, Savarkundla Police Station and Atulkumar Rajendrasinh, who was serving as PSI, Khamba Police Station as PW. 9. Prosecution has examined PW-15 at Exh.40, namely, Atulkumar Rajendrasinh, who was serving as PSI, Khamba Police Station at the relevant point of time. This witness had deposed about the investigation carried out by him and also deposed about contents of the decease, and other witnesses including the Panch Witnesses and had supported the case of the prosecution by deposing that he followed the procedure and completed the investigation in accordance with law. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law in evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous and based on irrelevant material. 11. He would submit that despite there being clear evidence by the prosecution that the offence, punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, was committed by the respondent accused and injuries on the body parts of the deceased have been supported by the medical examination, to discard such evidence, no cogent reasons have been assigned by the learned Trial Court and the respondent - accused ought to have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 12. 12. He would further submit that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondents - accused and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record; however, the prosecution had proved its case against the accused. It is further contended that learned Trial Court has given weightage to the minor omission and contradiction in the witnesses; however, there was no any material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby, has committed an error in acquitting the accused. It is further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused and learned Trial Court has committed an error both on law and facts. 12.1 Thus, the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and pass appropriate sentences for the offences against all the accused by allowing the appeal. 13. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding acquittal appeal, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal. 14. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal. 15. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “42. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 40. 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 Cr.P.C. 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. 8.2. 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. 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.” 41. 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: 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material. 41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 16. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after appreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered while deciding the present appeal. 17. The learned Sessions Court, after appreciating evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the story put forth by complainant, was not found trustworthy for various reasons. It has been observed by the learned Trial Court that presence of the complainant at the scene of offence is doubtful because there were agricultural forms in nearby scene of offence but according to the complainant, none was present at the place of offence. It has been observed by the learned Trial Court that presence of the complainant at the scene of offence is doubtful because there were agricultural forms in nearby scene of offence but according to the complainant, none was present at the place of offence. The version of the complainant is that he went to the place of Bachubhai for tea and thereby, he was found present at the scene of offence. The prosecution has failed to examine said Bachubhai to confirm the facts of the case so stated by complainant. Even, the complainant’s version that he had tried to catch hold of the accused and then tried to chase him in rickshaw, which is not substantiated by evidence as no such statement of driver of Rickshaw was on record. There was no eyewitness to incident, who can confirm the story of the complainant on record. The complainant, who happens to be brother of the deceased, was an interested witness and in absence of any corroborative evidence, substantiating the presence of accused at the scene of offence, the Trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. 18. It is further required to notice that as per medical evidence of Dr. rvindbhai Ratilal, at Exh.11, who found 6 injuries on the body of the accused and injury no. 3 and 6 could have been due to sharp weapon, in the cross-examination of Investigation officer, at Exh.14 in Para 4, he has admitted that none of the witnesses have confirmed in the statement about the receipt of injuries sustained by accused. So story of the complainant is highly improbable and comes under cloud of suspicion. Furthermore, it has been observed that deposition of complainant as Nathabhai is tutored just to facilitate prosecution to bring the charge proved against the accused on record. The learned Sessions Court has not given weightage and not believed the deposition of Nathabhai, who happens to be son of deceased due to his age i.e. 5 years only. 19. Lastly, the deposition of Medical Officer is also not supporting the case of prosecution so far as injuries on the body of the deceased is concerned, which appears to not match with version given by the complainant about inflicting injuries by the accused. 20. 19. Lastly, the deposition of Medical Officer is also not supporting the case of prosecution so far as injuries on the body of the deceased is concerned, which appears to not match with version given by the complainant about inflicting injuries by the accused. 20. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the presence of the complainant is highly doubtful at the scene of offence and there is no eyewitness, who has been examined to confirm the crime committed by accused and medical evidence on record. 21. We have gone through the impugned judgment and re-appreciated entire sets of evidence. We are in complete agreement with the observations and reasons assigned by learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused. There are serious contradictions, improbable story of prosecution and delay in lodging FIR without any plausible explanation, which lead to only one conclusion and hence, the Trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. 22. Thus, after going through evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Sessions Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the charges against accused and the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused. 23. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the scope of acquittal appeal, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Amreli, in Sessions Case No. 125 of 2000 while acquitting the respondents. 24. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.