Order : (Sandeep Shah, J.) 1. The present appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved against the order dated 19.04.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.94/98, whereby learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents- Thaneshwar & Mani Lal for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. 2. By a separate order dated 17.04.2025, based on the report submitted by the learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General, the Court was informed that accused– respondent No.1-Thaneshwar, has passed away. Consequently, the appeal against him was abated. However, the case was heard on merits with respect to respondent No.2, Mani Lal. Facts of the case: 3. On 17.04.1997, an information was submitted to the police officials at Police Station Gadhi, District Banswara, by one Gamira. He reported that his younger brother, Ram Lal, was working as a Principal at the Government School, Bassi Ahada, and used to commute daily from his residence to the school. On the said morning, at around 4:30 AM, Ram Lal had left his house on foot to go to school. However, at around 5:45 AM, Bapulal Adiwasi and others came to Gamira’s house and informed him that Ram Lal had been murdered. They stated that his body was found lying behind Bapulal’s house, with blood flowing from his body, and requested him to come to the spot. It was further stated by Gamira that he, along with his brother Himmatlal and uncle Kanji, went to the site. There, they found Ram Lal lying on the ground, with blood oozing from his mouth, head, hands, and face indicating that he had been assaulted with a sharp-edged weapon. 4. It was further stated that when they asked Ram Lal about who was responsible for the attack, Ram Lal raised two fingers and uttered the words "Thana, Thana.". Meanwhile, Sh. Lemba, son of Lalji, and Kanhaiya Lal, son of Kalji, arrived at the site. They informed that between 4:30 and 5:00 AM, while they were on their way to Arthuna to get a thrashing machine, they had seen Ram Lal walking about 100 yards ahead of them. It was further stated that they heard Ramlal shouting, upon which both of them reached the site and saw Thaneshwar and Mani Lal assaulting Ramlal with a sword (talwar) and a stick (lath), respectively. It was further stated that they heard Ramlal shouting, upon which both of them reached the site and saw Thaneshwar and Mani Lal assaulting Ramlal with a sword (talwar) and a stick (lath), respectively. It was further submitted that Thaneshwar was holding the sword, and Mani Lal was holding the stick. Upon reaching the scene, Lemba and Kanaiyalal asked Thaneshwar and Mani Lal why they were hitting Ramlal. Upon hearing this, Thaneshwar dropped the sword, and both attackers fled the scene. Thaneshwar even left his slipper behind. The sword had blood on it. They chased Thaneshwar and Mani Lal but couldn't catch them. Thereafter, while they were at the scene, the neighbors arrived, and a jeep was subsequently called from Arthuna. Ram Lal was taken to Pratapur Hospital for treatment, where he sucummed to the injuries. It was further stated that at the site, a sword and a slipper were found, which were taken care of by the villagers. Thus, it was stated that Ram Lal was murdered by Thaneshwar and Mani Lal, and therefore appropriate action may be taken. 5. Based upon the aforementioned FIR, the police initiated an investigation. During the course of the investigation, they recovered a sword and a slipper from the site in question, prepared a panchnama for the body of the deceased, and prepared a site plan of the area where the murder occurred. The accused-respondents, Thaneshwar and Mani Lal, were arrested. Based on the information provided by Thaneshwar under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, a bloodstained trouser he had worn was recovered. The post- mortem report was obtained. The FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report was also obtained regarding the sword, blood-stained soil, clothes, and the slippers. After completing the investigation, the police filed a challan against both accused for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 6. The prosecution subsequently examined 13 witnesses to support their case and also exhibited 17 documents. The accused presented five documents to support their defense. During the examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the accused-respondents denied committing any offence. 7. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence, passed the order on 19.04.2001 acquitting both accused. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and found significant contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. 8. 7. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence, passed the order on 19.04.2001 acquitting both accused. The trial court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused and found significant contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. 8. Aggrieved by the above order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State. Argument on behalf of the appellant- State: 9. Learned GA-cum-AAG submitted that this was a case where the offence was proven based on the statements of two eyewitnesses, namely PW-2 Lemba and PW-3 Kanhaiya Lal, and that there were no inconsistencies in their testimonies. Therefore, their statements were sufficient to convict the accused-respondents. 10. Learned AAG further submitted that the statements of the eyewitnesses were corroborated by other witnesses who had reached the site. In their presence, the deceased had, while pointing two fingers, stated that the incident was caused by Thana. 11. Furthermore, the sword, which was the weapon of offence, and the slipper worn by Thaneshwar were recovered at the site. The FSL report also clearly indicated that both the trousers worn by the deceased and the one worn by the accused, Thaneshwar, contained blood of the same group, i.e., A+. Additionally, the sword and slipper were both found to have human blood on them. The motive was also clear that the accused, Thaneshwar, forcibly wanted to marry the daughter of the deceased, Ram Lal. 12. Additionally, there was a dispute between the parties regarding land, which provided sufficient grounds for the murder. These evidences clearly established that the accused-respondents committed the crime, yet this aspect of the matter was completely been overlooked by the learned trial court while passing the judgment dated 19.04.2001. Argument on behalf of respondent-accused: 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the trial court, stating that the court below rightly held that the statements of PW-2 and PW-3, i.e., Lemba and Kanhaiyalal, the alleged eyewitnesses, were inconsistent and their presence at the site was not established. It was further submitted that PW-5, Dr. Gangadhar Vyas, who conducted the post- mortem and prepared the post-mortem report (ExhP.8), clarified that no injury was caused by a lathi, thereby rendering the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses unreliable. It was further submitted that PW-5, Dr. Gangadhar Vyas, who conducted the post- mortem and prepared the post-mortem report (ExhP.8), clarified that no injury was caused by a lathi, thereby rendering the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses unreliable. Moreover, the improvements made by both alleged witnesses cast doubt on their versions, as there were clearly inconsistencies in their statements before the police, i.e., D1 & D2, which were exhibited by the defense and the statement made during the course of trial. It has further been stated that, even assuming the entire evidence is presumed to be correct, the guilt is only attributable to the accused, Thaneshwar, and not to Mani Lal. The appeal has already been abated against Thaneshwar, and therefore, there is no reason to hold the accused, Mani Lal, guilty in the present case. It has also been argued that no recovery of a lathi or any other article was made from respondent No.2, Mani Lal, and further, no injury has been attributed to him in the post-mortem report. Therefore, the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused respondents. Analysis and reasoning: 14. Having considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for both parties and after perusing the record, we find that the trial court was justified in disbelieving the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses, PW-2 Lemba and PW-3 Kanhaiyalal, as there are significant contradictions in their testimonies and their presence at the site has not been adequately proven. 15. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order impugned the trial court has only minutely considered the evidence of the witnesses. Their presence at the scene has rightly been disbelieved, as there are conflicting versions from both witnesses regarding the location they were going toward and also the direction in which they were moving. The site plan (ExhP.-3) prepared by the prosecution does not indicate the presence of two witnesses as the site the accused allegedly murdered the deceased. It also fails to show the correct route as to from east to south or towards village Arthuna on the west side of the site, which was a specific assertion made by both alleged eyewitnesses, PW-2 Lemba and PW-3 Kanhaiyalal. 16. The prosecution's story is not established, as both eyewitnesses PW-2 Lemba and PW-3 Kanhaiyalal specifically stated that the deceased was assaulted with a lathi by the accused, Mani Lal. However, PW-5 Dr. 16. The prosecution's story is not established, as both eyewitnesses PW-2 Lemba and PW-3 Kanhaiyalal specifically stated that the deceased was assaulted with a lathi by the accused, Mani Lal. However, PW-5 Dr. Gangadhar Vyas, who conducted the postmortem and prepared the postmortem report, clearly stated that none of the injuries mentioned were caused by a lathi; instead, all injuries were inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. This clearly creates a contradiction between the expert opinion of the doctor connecting the crime with a sharp edged weapon and eye-witnesses connecting the crime with a ‘lathi’ and both the versions cannot co-exist. 17. Further, even if the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 are accepted in their entirety, then also, the presence of Mani Lal is not proved and whereas, appeal against Thaneshwar is already abated. 18. Furthermore, there are discrepancies in the timeline provided by both eyewitnesses, PW-2 Lemba and PW-3 Kanhaiyalal. PW-2 Lemba states that they left at around 4:30 AM, whereas PW-3 Kanhaiyalal mentions they left closer to 5:00 AM. Not only this, a bare perusal of the statement of PW-3 reveals that when they reached the site, they could only see the back of the accused. Furthermore, their return to the site nearly an hour after the incident itself impeaches their testimony and casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution’s case. Admittedly, they stated that they ran after the accused for approximately half a kilometer before returning to the site. As per their own version, they reached the site at 5:00 AM and, after chasing the accused, returned around 6:00 AM. Needless to say, the one-hour duration to cover a short distance of merely half a kilometer strongly suggests that they were not present at the site and, in fact, were not eyewitnesses as the prosecution has attempted to portray. Logically, the entire sequence could not have taken more than 15 minutes. Their unexplained absence for a full hour, coupled with the contradictions in their statements, clearly indicates that the learned Trial Court was justified in not placing reliance on their testimony. 19. Logically, the entire sequence could not have taken more than 15 minutes. Their unexplained absence for a full hour, coupled with the contradictions in their statements, clearly indicates that the learned Trial Court was justified in not placing reliance on their testimony. 19. This, coupled with the fact that the initial statements of the witnesses before the police officials under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Exh.D-1 & Exh.D-2) do not mention that 7–8 blows were given by the accused, nor any reference to the act of picking up stones to threaten the accused, was made, further weakens the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the alleged motive appears to have been introduced later by both witnesses, which further casts doubt on their presence at the scene and indicates substantial improvements were made in their statements at a subsequent stage. 20. An important aspect worth consideration is that PW-3 Kanhaiyalal admitted that when they raised a hue and cry and chased the accused, several timber workers were present nearby and witnessed the incident. He even stated that these persons were from village Dhanewa and frequently visited their village. However, none of those individuals were examined by the prosecution, which is a crucial omission. The non-examination of independent witnesses further undermines the credibility of PW-2 and PW-3, and throws their version of events into serious doubt. 21. Moreover, the non-recovery of the lathi or any other article from accused Mani Lal, coupled with the fact that no injury on the body of the deceased has been attributed to him as the postmortem report confirms no lathi-related injuries is a relevant consideration taken into account by the learned trial Court. This has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused persons. 22. More so, the points for consideration as far as hearing of appeals from order of acquittal and consideration of the same by appellate Court has been crystallized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and summarized the legal position as under: 8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and summarized the legal position as under: 8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised 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 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.” 23. Taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgment, it is clear that the appellant-State has failed to establish that the judgment of acquittal suffers from any perversity or is based on a misreading of the material available on record. Furthermore, this is not a case where no other reasonable view is possible. In fact, in the present case, the view pointing towards the guilt of the accused is weak and improbable, whereas the alternative view favouring the accused is much stronger and more plausible. 24. Thus, upon considering the entire record, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 19.04.2001. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is upheld, and the appeal stands dismissed. 25. 24. Thus, upon considering the entire record, we find that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 19.04.2001. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is upheld, and the appeal stands dismissed. 25. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused-respondent is directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety bond 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-appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as soon as she would be called upon to do so. 26. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.