JUDGMENT : (Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.) This appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C by the State against the judgment dated 21.05.2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra District Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No. 391 of 1994 after taking leave to file appeal vide order dated 21.11.2003 passed in M.Cr.C.No.2431/2003 by which leave to file appeal has been granted against respondents No.1- Jagdish, No.2- Raghuveer, No.3- Kamta, No.5- Siyasharan, No.7-Laxman, No.13- Jaswant and No.17- Omprakash. During pendency of appeal respondent No.2- Raghuveer has died, and therefore, his name has been deleted from the array of respondents. Vide impugned judgment passed by the trial Court respondents No.1- Jagdish, No.3- Kamta, No.5- Siyasharan, No.7-Laxman, No.13-Jaswant and No.17- Omprakash have been acquitted of the charges under sections 147, 148, 302 or 302/149, 307 of IPC (Respondent No.1- Jagdish has been acquitted of charge under Section 302 & remaining of charge under Section 302/149 of IPC). 2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 06.02.1994 Uttam Singh (PW-2) alongwith his father Sitaram was in his field in village Kutoli. Pran Singh & Kallu came to Sitaram to buy fodder, at that juncture, the accused persons due to previous enmity came there armed with weapons. On seeing them, Seetaram, Uttam (PW- 2), Pran Singh and Kallu s/o Mulayam started running. The accused chased them and they ran to village Beesanpur. The accused persons also fired at them on the way. Rajendra Singh (PW-1) was grazing his buffaloes. On hearing the sound of gunshot, he reached house of Mohar Singh. Mohar Singh and Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) were present there. Kallu s/o Mulayam, Uttam, Pran Singh and Sitaram on reaching Beesanpur entered the house of Mohar Singh. When Mohar asked them, they told that accused Jagdish was coming to kill along with his accomplices. Then the deceased Mohar Singh hid these four persons in room situated at roof of his house and Mohar Singh, Rajendra (PW-1), Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) stood on rooftop. Thereafter, accused Jagdish came there with his companions, started abusing, surrounded Mohar Singh's house and asked to take Sitaram out. When deceased Mohar Singh denied, accused Omprakash provoked Jagdish to shoot him, on which, Jagdish fired gunshot on Mohar Singh which hit on his neck, as a result of which he fell down and died. Thereafter, accused Jagdish came there with his companions, started abusing, surrounded Mohar Singh's house and asked to take Sitaram out. When deceased Mohar Singh denied, accused Omprakash provoked Jagdish to shoot him, on which, Jagdish fired gunshot on Mohar Singh which hit on his neck, as a result of which he fell down and died. The accused Raghuveer, Omprakash and Laxman also fired on them, but they saved their lives by hiding themselves. The incident was seen by Kallu s/o Mulayam, Pran Singh, Sitaram, Uttam Singh, Rajendra Singh, Kallu @ Saroop Singh, Bhooti, Rajkumari, Raghuveer & Amrit. 3. The FIR (Exh. P-1) was lodged by Rajendra Singh Yadav, on which crime No.6/1994 was registered at police Station Pandokhar, Distt Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 294, 307 of IPC. Merg No.1/1994 was also registered. Matter was investigated. Upon completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. The charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 302 or 302/149, 307 of IPC. 4. The respondents abjured their guilt. They took the plea that they have been falsely implicated in the matter. However, no defence evidence was adduced by them. 5. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of evidence placed on record, acquitted the respondents from the aforesaid charges. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State as well as complainant that acquittal of accused persons from the charges levelled is not based on cogent grounds. The learned trial Court has given undue importance to the contradictions and omissions appear in the statements of the witnesses. The omissions and contradictions are of trivial nature and cannot be given undue importance. Substantially the witnesses have supported the version of the prosecution, specially the eye-witnesses have categorically stated that respondent Jagdish fired bullet from the gun due to which Mohar Singh sustained injury in the neck and other respondents were also present on the spot having common object to cause murder of the deceased. The prosecution has proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons from the said charges. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. 9. The prosecution has proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons from the said charges. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. 9. We have to examine in the present appeal that whether acquittal of respondents No.1- Jagdish, No.3- Kamta, No.5- Siyasharan, No.7-Laxman, No.13-Jaswant and No.17- Omprakash is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and lawful ? 10. Dr. Govind Singh (PW-10) has stated that on 6.2.1994 he was posted as Assistant Surgeon at Community Health Center, Bhander and on the same day he performed postmortem on the body of deceased Pappu @ Mohar Singh and found following injuries on his body: “Gun shot wound on the neck present. (i) Wound entrance- Inverted margin oval in shape 1.2 cm x 1.4 cm with blackish margin on the left side of the next 4 cm below to the left ear. (ii) Wound of exit- Everted irregular margins oval in shape. Pieces of underline structures are facing from the wound. 3 cm x 2.5 cm on the back & right side of the neck at the junction of head & neck 2 cm above from the line of wound of entrance. Structures between the wound of entrance & exit are ruptured. No any foreign body found in the wound.” In internal examination no abnormality was found. The death was found to be within 12 hours of examination. The injury was antemortem and caused by firearm from a distance of 10-25 meters. The cause of death was due to cervical spinal injury and excessive haemorrhage through neck vessels. Thus, it is established that the death is homicidal in nature and on this point the testimony of the doctor remained unrebutted. 11. The prosecution has examined Rajendra (PW-1), Uttam (PW- 2), Amrit (PW-5), Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6), Bhuti Bai (PW-7) and Rajkumari (PW-8) as eye-witnesses of the incident. Independent witnesses Pappu @ Naval Kishore (PW-3) and Maan Khan (PW-4) did not support the prosecution case. Other eyewitnesses Kallu son of Mulayam Singh, Pran Singh and Sitaram could not be examined as they died before taking evidence. One more eye-witness Raghuveer son of Dayaram has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Independent witnesses Pappu @ Naval Kishore (PW-3) and Maan Khan (PW-4) did not support the prosecution case. Other eyewitnesses Kallu son of Mulayam Singh, Pran Singh and Sitaram could not be examined as they died before taking evidence. One more eye-witness Raghuveer son of Dayaram has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution hinges mainly on the evidence of said eye-witnesses and circumstantial evidence collected and produced by the prosecution in this case. 12. As per the statement of Rajendra (PW-1) at the time of incident he was grazing buffaloes. He heard the sound of fire, then he went to the house of his uncle Jahar Singh where Sitaram, Uttam Singh, Kallu son of Mulayam and Pran Singh came. Deceased Mohar Singh and Kallu @ Saroop Singh were already present there. Sitaram has told that accused Jagdish is following him, then Mohar Singh for saving them locked the aforesaid four persons in the room at upper storey and he along with Mohar Singh and Kallu @ Saroop Singh did stand on the roof of the house. Later on, accused persons surrounded the house of Mohar Singh and told him to take Sitaram out from the house. When Mohar Singh denied, accused Omprakash provoked by saying that “Isi ko Mar Do”, then accused Jagdish fired on deceased Mohar Singh who sustained gunshot injury on his neck. Thereafter Omprakash, Laxman and Jaswant fired on Kallu @ Saroop Singh. Mohar Singh succumbed to said grievous injury. Other eye-witnesses Uttam Singh (PW-2), Amrit Singh (PW-5), Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6), Bhuti (PW-7) and Rajkumari (PW-8) have supported the statement of Rajendra (PW-1) to that extent. 13. Rajendra (PW-1) and Amrit (PW-5) are admittedly the cousin brother of the deceased. Other prosecution witnesses Uttam Singh (PW-2) and Kallu @ Swaroop Singh (PW-6) are also relatives of the deceased. Prosecution witness Bhuti (PW-7) is the mother and Rajkumari (PW-8) is the widow of the deceased. Therefore, said eye-witnesses of the incident are near relatives of the deceased, but it is trite law that statements of related witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that they are related to the deceased though their statements are to be scrutinized with circumspection. Here in this case also, the deposition of these witnesses are subject to close and careful scrutiny. 14. Here in this case also, the deposition of these witnesses are subject to close and careful scrutiny. 14. Though Rajendra (PW-1) deposed about the presence of 8 accused persons while Uttam (PW-2) indicated that there were 16 accused persons on the spot. So far as present six respondents are concerned, Rajendra (PW-1) has stated that accused/appellant Jagdish uttered filthy language, threatened and fired on Mohar Singh, accused Ompkrash instigated him for firing and accused Raghuvir, Omprakash and Laxman have fired on Rajendra and Kallu @ Saroop Singh, but so far as other respondents Kamta and Siyasharan are concerned, no overt act has been indicated either in the FIR or in the statements of these eye-witnesses. 15. Rajendra (PW-1) though deposed that Jaswant has also fired, but this fact is missing in the FIR, moreso this fact is not ratified by Uttam (PW-2). Uttam (PW-2) also stated about firing by Siyasharan while this fact is missing in the statement of Rajendra (PW-1) and FIR (Ex.P/1). Amrit Singh (PW-5) also stated that Omprakash and Siyasharan have fired after firing by Jagdish but this fact is not supported by Rajendra (PW-1) & FIR. Kallu @ Saroop Singh stated that Raghuveer, Siyasharan and Jaswant have fired on the deceased and other eye-witnesses, but this fact is missing in FIR (Ex.P/1). Ex.P/1 indicates that Omprakash and Laxman have fired after firing by Jagdish whereas other eye-witnesses Bhuti Bai (PW- 7) and Rajkumari (PW-8) stated only overt act of accused Jagdish. They remained silent about the overt act of other accused persons. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that Rajendra (PW-1) stated that at the time of incident he was grazing his buffaloes behind his house, but in his cross-examination he changed his version and stated that he was grazing the buffaloes in open land adjacent to his house. He further deposed that he was not grazing buffaloes behind his house, but behind the house of Jahar Singh he was also grazing buffaloes. Therefore, in chief and cross-examination he changed his version as regards place of his presence just before the incident. Spot map (Ex.P/2), prepared at the instance of this witness, does not indicate that house of this witness (PW-1) is adjacent to the house of Jahar Singh. 17. Rajendra (PW-1) stated in his deposition that at the time of grazing buffaloes nobody was with him. Spot map (Ex.P/2), prepared at the instance of this witness, does not indicate that house of this witness (PW-1) is adjacent to the house of Jahar Singh. 17. Rajendra (PW-1) stated in his deposition that at the time of grazing buffaloes nobody was with him. Later on, he stated that he was grazing buffaloes along with deceased Mohar Singh and on hearing the sound of firing, Mohar Singh and this witness both reached to the house of Mohar Singh, but this fact is omitted in the FIR (Ex.P/1). Eye-witness Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) has stated that Mohar Singh and this witness were in the house of Mohar Singh since morning and on hearing the sound of fire they came to the door of the house. Similar is the statement of Rajkumari (PW-3) who stated that deceased was present in the house since morning. 18. It also revealed from the story of prosecution that the prosecution witnesses Rajendra (PW-1), Kallu @ Swaroop Singh (PW-6) and deceased Mohar Singh knew the fact that accused Jagdish and others are following Sitaram, Uttam, Pran Singh and Kallu, but in spite of that deceased Mohar Singh along with Rajendra and Kallu was standing on the roof without any weapon or preparation for saving Sitaram and others including themselves which does not seem to be natural, specially keeping in view the fact revealed from the evidence that father of Rajendra namely Ramdas had a licensee gun. Moreover Rajendra (PW-1) admits that after the incident and before going to lodge the report, he did not inform residents of the house of the deceased and neighbours about the incident. This also shows unnatural conduct on the part of the eye-witnesses. 19. Moreover Rajendra (PW-1) admits that after the incident and before going to lodge the report, he did not inform residents of the house of the deceased and neighbours about the incident. This also shows unnatural conduct on the part of the eye-witnesses. 19. It also revealed from the statements of eye-witnesses that accused persons have fired 8-10 rounds on Sitaram, Uttam, Pran Singh and Kallu and they followed them from village Kutauli to Beesanpura, around 1 kms for half an hour, moreso it also transpired from the statement of Uttam Singh (PW-2) that his father Sitaram was 53-54 years old and Sitaram had received a gunshot injury in his thigh in the incident dated 30.1.1994, thus, it seems to be improbable that such an old man having injury in his leg received just 6-7 days before the incident may run continuously for half an hour and it also seems unnatural that 16 accused persons out of them one Kallu was on horse were following them, but they could not catch these four persons including Sitaram and no injury of firearm could be caused to them during this period. 20. As per the case of prosecution the accused persons, who were residents of different villages, started following Sitaram etc. from the field at village Kutauli, but no witness of village Kutauli has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to support the case as to whether accused persons after assembling at a place with deadly weapons had followed Sitaram etc. It also transpired from the testimony of prosecution witnesses that to reach house of Jahar Singh one has to pass through village Beesanpura, but here again no witness of village Beesanpur has been examined who has seen the incident. 21. It also revealed from the statements of eye-witness that Sitraram, Pran, Uttam Singh and Kallu remained locked in the room till arrival of police, but Uttam (PW-2) stated in his crossexamination that they did not lock the aforesaid persons in the room, the door remained open, this fact, however, is missing in his police Statement. It also revealed from the statement of this witness that these four persons had seen the incident from the room through a Jungla (ventilator), but no such ventilator has been shown in the spot map (Ex.P/2) & (Ex.P/3). It also revealed from the statement of this witness that these four persons had seen the incident from the room through a Jungla (ventilator), but no such ventilator has been shown in the spot map (Ex.P/2) & (Ex.P/3). That apart, as per spot map (Ex.P/2) and Ex.P/3) accused persons were standing in different, east and north directions. It is not clarified by the witnesses that how they identified accused persons allegedly present in both the directions. Therefore, it appears that such fact is improved by Uttam Singh (PW-2) in his statement. The conduct of eye-witnesses not to inform anyone and not to take Mohar Singh to Hospital before reaching the police even when Rajkumari, wife of the deceased, fell down from the roof and Bhuti, mother of the deceased, fell unconscious, also denotes the unnatural conduct of the witnesses. 22. Amrit Singh (PW-5), who is cousin brother of the deceased, has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to the house of Raghuveer Singh to take fodder, but even after his presence at the spot at the time of incident, why his name has not been mentioned in the FIR as eye-witness is unanswered. Rajendra (PW-1) did not specify the name of this witness as an eye-witness. This witness (PW-5) deposed in the Court that he went to the house of Raghuveer for taking fodder and he has seen the incident from the house of Raghuveer, but in spot map (Ex.P/2) the house of Raghuveer has not been indicated. Supposing that house of Raghuveer is situated behind the house of Lalaram, then how he has seen the incident by sitting on “Patiya” placed in front of the house, is not clarified by the witness. Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW- 6) also admitted that there is a Neem tree in front of house of Lalaram. 23. This witness Amrit Singh (PW-5) also deposed that upto two hours he was sitting on a Patiya and talking with Raghuveer, but having regard to the fact that this witness is cousin brother of the deceased, it does not seem to be natural conduct of this witness not to visit the house of his cousin brother even after watching the incident. He also admits that before reaching Sitaram etc. He also admits that before reaching Sitaram etc. he did not pay heed to the sound of firing and did not talk to Sitaram and Uttam, who happened to be his near relatives. This shows unnatural conduct of this witness. Uttam Singh (PW-2) has stated that Raghuveer Singh and Amrit (PW-5) had requested accused Jagdish with folded hands that no one is to be killed here, however, Amrit (PW-5) did not state that he has made any such request to accused persons. Further this witness stated that he fell unconscious on hearing the sound of fire and when he became conscious he found himself to be on Patiya. In view of such statement, testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence. 24. Learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence of Bhuti (PW-7) and Rajkumari (PW-8) in detail in para 30 and 31 of the impugned judgment. The statements of these eye-witnesses are only as regards accused Jagdish, but how they have identified accused Jagdish, is not clarified by these witnesses. Bhuti (PW-7) stated that she heard accused Jagdish while abusing, but she also admits that she did not visit village of accused Jagdish, she never talked to Jagdish. In such circumstances, how she identified the voice of accused Jagdish, remained unanswered. Rajkumari (PW-8) also deposed in the same way. Therefore, the identification of Jagdish by these two witnesses is highly doubtful. 25. It also transpired from the statements of the witnesses and case of prosecution that no independent witness of village Kutauli and Beesanpura has been examined while such witnesses could be available and produced on behalf of the prosecution as independent eye-witnesses. Raghuveer son of Dayaram was an eye-witness as per the story of prosecution who requested accused Jagdish not to kill any person, in spite of that this witness has not been examined on behalf of the prosecution with reasons best known to the prosecution. Spot map (Ex.P/2) & (Ex.P/3) reveals that houses of Rameshwar, Ramsevak and Lalaram are situated in the vicinity of place of occurrence, but the residents of these houses have not been examined. The prosecution has not taken pain to get independent eye-witnesses examined who could be available and instrumental in this case to reveal the truth. 26. A significant dent on the case of prosecution is also revealed from the statement of Dr. The prosecution has not taken pain to get independent eye-witnesses examined who could be available and instrumental in this case to reveal the truth. 26. A significant dent on the case of prosecution is also revealed from the statement of Dr. Govind Singh (PW-10), who though in chief examination has stated that the deceased was shot by firearm from a distance of 10-25 meters, but in his cross-examination he deposed contrary that fire was caused to the deceased from a distance of 4-5 ft. i.e. one and half meter and not from the distance of 10-25 meters. He categorically admitted in cross-examination that in report Ex.P/27, the distance between deceased and place of firing has been erroneously mentioned as 10-15 meters due to mistake as the entry wound was having blackening which may be occurred when gunshot is fired from a close range. As per the spot map (Ex.P/2) & (Ex.P/3) there was a distance of 72 ft. between the deceased and accused Jagdish who allegedly fired gunshot. 27. It also revealed from the evidence on record that the deceased was on the second floor of his house which is about 18 ft above the surface on which accused Jagdish was standing. It is, however, categorically stated by Dr. Govind Singh (PW-10) that exit wound was only 2 cm above the entry wound which is only possible when at the time of firing, rifle was used having some upward angle, whereas the angle would be more in case of firing from ground level towards deceased Mohar Singh standing 18 ft. above. Therefore, the entire story of prosecution as regards firing from the distance of 72 ft. or 10-25 meters and that too from the ground level to the deceased who was standing at the height of 18 ft becomes highly doubtful vis-a-vis the statement of Dr. Govind Singh. 28. Rajendra (PW-1) stated that accused Jagdish has fired gunshot while standing behind the pile of bricks while Amrit Singh stated that accused Jagdish has fired while standing on the pile of bricks and he has not fired while standing behind the pile of bricks. Bhuti (PW-7) has not stated confidently in this regard. Rajkumari (PW-8) has stated that Jagdish fired while standing nearby the pile of bricks, he was not standing on the pile of bricks. Bhuti (PW-7) has not stated confidently in this regard. Rajkumari (PW-8) has stated that Jagdish fired while standing nearby the pile of bricks, he was not standing on the pile of bricks. It also revealed from the evidence that there was some tree between the places where allegedly accused Jagdish and deceased Moharsingh were standing. Therefore, angled firing with such accuracy from a distance of 72 ft. in these circumstances seems to be highly doubtful. 29. One more anomaly as revealed from the statements of witnesses is regarding the injury sustained by the deceased on the left side of his neck. As per the story of prosecution deceased Mohar Singh and accused Jagdish were conversing and as such, naturally their faces would have been towards each other. In such a situation, the deceased ought to have sustained injury on front side of his neck/body. Though Rajendra (PW-1) has stated that at the time of firing, the face of deceased Mohar Singh was towards south, but this fact appears to be improved by this witness as it did not find place in his police statement or FIR lodged by this witness. 30. Further as per the statement of Anil Tripathi (PW-11), who is the investigating officer, seizure (Ex.P/18) of two empty cartridges was made from the pile of cow-dung cake and as per the spot map (Ex.P/2) & (Ex.P/3) this place is shown in the north which is far from the place where accused Jagdish was allegedly present at the time of incident. No explanation in this regard has been put forth by the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that no empty cartridge has been found nearby the place from where accused Jagdish alleged to have fired on the deceased. 31. In this regard FSL report (Ex.P/48) is also pertinent which reveals that seized two empty cartridges, which have been sent for examination, have not been fired from 12 bore gun. 32. As per the statements of Rajendra (PW-1), Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) and Uttam (PW-2), 8 to 10 more rounds were fired after sustaining gunshot by deceased Mohar Singh, but except two empty cartridges no evidence of further firing has been found. No marks of bullet or pellet have been found on the house of the deceased. 32. As per the statements of Rajendra (PW-1), Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) and Uttam (PW-2), 8 to 10 more rounds were fired after sustaining gunshot by deceased Mohar Singh, but except two empty cartridges no evidence of further firing has been found. No marks of bullet or pellet have been found on the house of the deceased. None other than Mohar Singh has sustained any injury of bullet or pellet whereas as per the story of prosecution Rajendra (PW-1) and Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) were standing along with the deceased Mohar Singh on the roof of the house. 33. It also revealed from the testimony of Anil Tripathi (PW-11) that gun of accused Jagdish was deposited in Agrawal Gun House, Gwalior, before three days of the incident though it is stated by the witness that there is overwriting in the register and different ink has been used, but he also admits that no enquiry as regards overwriting or using of different ink has been conducted. Therefore, as per the entry of this register the gun which was used by accused Jagdish at the time of incident was already deposited with Agrawal Gun House three days before the incident, hence, it was not possible for accused Jagdish to allegedly fire from this gun on the date of incident. 34. As per the statement of Dr. Govind Singh (PW-10), both the legs of Mohar Singh were stained with mud while as per the statements of Kallu @ Saroop Singh (PW-6) and Rajkumari (PW-8) deceased Mohar Singh was in the house since morning and since the statement of Rajendra (PW-1) is not found to be believable that he was grazing buffaloes with deceased Mohar Singh, therefore, explanation of presence of mud on both the legs of deceased has not been given by the prosecution. As per the seizure memo (Ex.P/25) there was no dust or mud on the roof where Mohar Singh was standing at the time of incident. 35. As per the seizure memo (Ex.P/25) there was no dust or mud on the roof where Mohar Singh was standing at the time of incident. 35. It is also indicated by the learned trial Court in para 46 of the impugned judgment that as per the order of the High Court, papers regarding C.I.D. enquiry was to be produced by the prosecution, but prosecution has not produced it, which also goes against the prosecution in this case, moreover, in para 47 of impugned judgment non-compliance of the provisions of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. is also highlighted by the trial Court. Ex.P/50 is the report issued by FSL with the observation that blood stains were found on the stairs on which Mohar Singh was sitting, therefore, it raises doubt that at the time of accident deceased Mohar Singh was standing on the roof or was sitting on the stairs. 36. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14 SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same. 37. In the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered various earlier judgments on the scope of interference in a case of acquittal and held that “there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that 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. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that 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 court. It has been further held that 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. 38. In case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered and summarized the principles that need to be kept in mind while deciding the appeal against acquittal 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 reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3.The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating 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. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :- "42.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. 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 summarised 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 reappreciation 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." 40. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussions and having regard to the ratio laid down in aforesaid cases, it is found that statements of eye-witnesses are full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations on material particulars which render their testimony doubtful and not worthy of credence. Furthermore the gun which was allegedly used by accused Jagdish was deposited in Agrawal Gun House, Gwalior, three days before the incident, therefore, it was not possible for accused Jagdish to use that gun in the incident, moreover, in the light of statement of Dr. Govind Singh (PW-10) entire story of prosecution renders doubtful. In these circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court in regard to acquittal by giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. 41. We are of the considered view that acquittal of the respondents from the charges levelled under Sections 147, 148, 302 or 302/149, 307 of IPC is based on legal grounds. No perversity or illegality appears therefrom. No ground for interference is made out in the appeal. Therefore, appeal being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed. 41. We are of the considered view that acquittal of the respondents from the charges levelled under Sections 147, 148, 302 or 302/149, 307 of IPC is based on legal grounds. No perversity or illegality appears therefrom. No ground for interference is made out in the appeal. Therefore, appeal being bereft of merits is hereby dismissed. The order of the trial Court as regards disposal of seized property is hereby affirmed.