Judgment : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. In the instant criminal appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment dated 20.09.1996 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh (‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.105/1990 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Kishan Singh & Ors.), whereby, accused-respondents - No.1-Kishan Singh, No.2- Devi Singh & No.4-Ladkanwar were acquitted of the charges against them under Sections 148 , 302, 302/149 & 323 IPC; accused respondent No.3-Narwar Singh was acquitted of the charges against him under Sections 148 , 302 IPC, in alternative, Section 302 /149 IPC; though accused-Narwar Singh was convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further three years’ rigorous imprisonment. Hence, the appellant-State has challenged the impugned judgment dated 20.09.1996 only to the extent of acquittal part thereof. 2. The matter pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 1990 and the present appeal has been pending since the year 1998. 2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf the appellant-State, are that on 09.08.1990, one Manohar Singh (complainant and P.W.2) gave an oral information to the S.H.O., Police Station, Badi Sadari, alleging therein that on the said date, at around 9:00 p.m., when, after grazing his ox, he returned to the village, accused-Narwar, intercepted and asked as to how the complainant was instrumental in getting the said accused’s liquor seized; at that time, accused-Devi Singh, accused-Kishan’s wife, Devi Singh’s wife, whose name the complainant did not remember, also reached there. As alleged, they all attacked the complainant, and inflicted lathi blow on his hand, and stone blow on head. The said act was intervened by Kesar Singh, Sangram Singh & his wife, Kailash Singh, and other persons. 2.1. The complainant stated that there was no previous enmity between the parties, and the said attack was due to apprehension on the part of the accused persons, that the complainant was involved in the exercise of seizure of the accused’s liquor. 2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case was registered under Sections 147 , 149 & 323 IPC, and the investigation started accordingly. 2.2. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case was registered under Sections 147 , 149 & 323 IPC, and the investigation started accordingly. In the said incident, as per the prosecution, one Kalyan Singh got injured and became unconscious, and thus, was admitted in the Udaipur General Hospital, where he was declared dead. Hence, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 302 & 323 IPC; after hearing arguments on the stage of framing of charge, the said charges were read over to the accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial, and the trial commenced accordingly. 2.3. During the course of trial, the statements of 22 witnesses (P.W. 1 to P.W. 18) were recorded, and documents (Ex.P.1 to 27) got exhibited on behalf of the prosecution; in defence, witnesses D.W. 1 was produced and documents (Ex.D.1 to D.3) were exhibited, for examination; whereafter, the accused-respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they pleaded innocence and false implication in the criminal case in question. 2.4. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court, passed the impugned judgment dated 20.09.1996, as above, and against the acquittal part thereof, the appellant-State preferred appeal before this Court. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submitted that Manohar Singh (P.W.2), Complainant, in his testimony while narrating the incident that occurred on 09.08.1990, stated that when he returned form his well after grazing his ox, and was tethering the ox at his house, accused-respondent Narwar Singh approached him, and hit him on his hand by an axe, and subsequently accused-respondent Devi Singh also hit him on his hand by a Lath. It was submitted that the said witness had also testified that, in the meanwhile the accused-respondent Kishan Singh also came and started hurling stones, and thereupon two ladies also joined the attack. Further, it was submitted that in the said testimony it had been stated that, in meanwhile Bhomsingh, Kesar Singh, Kalyan Singh intervened to save him, thereupon accused-respondent Narwar Singh gave a hit to Kalyan Singh on his head by the Moond of an axe, accused- respondent Kishan Singh gave a blow by lathi which caused injury on ear, accused-respondent Devi Singh gave a blow of lathi on the head of Kalyan Singh, and the ladies while hurling stones were suggesting to end the life of Kalyan Singh. It was submitted that P.W.2 had in clear words deposed that due to the injuries caused to Kalyan Singh by accused-respondents he fell unconscious on the spot, and thus was admitted in the Udaipur General Hospital, where he was declared dead. It was further submitted that Sangram Singh (P.W.4) corroborated with the testimony of P.W.2. 3.2. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Bhom Singh (P.W.1), brother of complainant (P.W.2.), in his testimony has stated that when P.W.2 was returning after grazing his ox, accused-respondents Devi Singh, Kishan Singh, Narwar Singh attacked P.W.2. It was further submitted that the said witness testified that accused-respondent Narwar Singh hit Kalyan Singh with the Moond of an axe, accused-respondent Devi Singh and Kishan Singh also gave blows to Kalyan Singh by Lath. It was submitted that as per the testimony of the said witness accused- respondents, Narwar Singh hit Kalyan Singh on the head, Devi Singh hit Kalyan Singh on the Ear by a lath, the wives of accused- respondents who intervened in the meanwhile started hurling stones, and in consequence of the attack Kalyan Singh passed away. 3.3. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that Shrimati Ramesh Kanwar (P.W.9) had also stated in her testimony that when she came out of her house upon hearing shouting, she saw accused-respondent Narwar Singh gave a hit to Kalyan Singh by the Moond of an axe, and accused-respondents Kishan Singh and Devi Singh gave blows of lath. 3.4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that Dr. Ashok Sarupriya (P.W.14) in his statements testified that on 09.08.1990 while he was posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Badi Sadri, Manohar Singh (P.W.2) was examined, and it was found that there were injuries on P.W.2’s body as shown in EX.P. 18. It was further submitted that the said witness deposed that Bhom Singh also had injuries on his body. It was submitted that the said witness testified that he examined the body of Kalyan Singh, and prepared injury report Ex.P.20, wherein he found that the first injury was 2*5 cm which had blood clot, and 5 cm cut wound on the head, second injury was fracture on temporal bone, and third injury was the cut injury on left ear which separated the ear, furthermore, due to the said injury Kalyan Singh was in critical condition, and hence had to be referred to Udaipur, where he passed away. It was submitted that the post morterm report (Ex.P. 24) clearly reflects that the cause of death was the injury to the head. 3.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the recoveries have been made of a Lath at the instance of accused-respondent Kishan Singh, a stick was recovered at the instance of accused- respondent Devi Singh, an axe was recovered at the instance of the accused-respondent Narwar Singh. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused respondents while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State, submitted that there were multiple discrepancies in the statement of prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that P.W.2 in his statements deposed that Accused- respondent Narwar Singh gave a hit to Kalyan Singh on his head using an axe, whereas in the cross examination the said witness stated that the same accused-respondent gave him a blow of lath on his hand. It was submitted that even in information provided to the police (Ex.P.1), and the FIR (Ex.P.2) registered in consequence thereof, it was stated by the P.W.2 that accused-respondent Narwar Singh gave him a blow of lath. Moreover, it was submitted that in the said documents there is no mention of any axe, whatsoever, which had been used as weapon by accused- respondents, furthermore, it was submitted that Kesari Singh (P.W.6) had stated in his testimony that accused-respondent Narwar Singh attacked P.W.2 with a stick, but later stated that an axe was used by accused-respondent Narwar Singh. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1 in his testimony has mentioned that the accused-respondent Narwar Singh hit Kalyan Singh on his head by an axe, however, in the statement before police no description as to the nature and body part where the injury was caused was given. Furthermore, it was submitted that there was no mention of axe in the said statement. 4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that in the incident dated 09.08.1990, accused-respondent Devi Singh also received multiple injuries as per Ex.P.7. It was submitted that it the complainant and his companions who attacked the accused-respondent. Moreover, it was submitted that the testimony of Sangram Singh (P.W.4) reflects that Manohar Singh (P.W.2) was the person who hit Kalyan Singh on his head by an axe. It was submitted that it the complainant and his companions who attacked the accused-respondent. Moreover, it was submitted that the testimony of Sangram Singh (P.W.4) reflects that Manohar Singh (P.W.2) was the person who hit Kalyan Singh on his head by an axe. The said testimony stood undisputed through cross-examination, and it was submitted that it was this injury on the head which as per the doctor report resulted into the death of Kalyan singh. 4.3. It was further submitted that Tej Singh (P.W.5) in his testimony stated that the incident occurred in-front of the house of accused-respondent Kishan Singh, whereas P.W.2 and P.W.1 have alleged the place of incident to be their House. On the parallel note, it was submitted that the Naksha Mauka reveals that the place of incident was outside the house of P.W.2.,furthermore, P.W.1 and P.W.4 had stated in their testimony that the distance between the two houses, i.e., houses of accused-respondent Kishan Singh and P.W.2 is more than 150-200 fts. 4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that Nirbhay Singh (P.W.3) stated in his testimony it was P.W.2 and accused-respondent Devi Singh who were fighting, and the incident took place outside the house of accused-respondent Devi Singh. Tej Singh (P.W.5) had also corroborated with the testimony of P.W.3, and had stated that the P.W.2 and accused-respondent Devi Singh were fighting outside the House of accused-respondent Devi Singh. 4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that the recoveries of the weapons do not prove anything until they are connected to the incident through forensics reports, and the same were not available on record. Hence, the recoveries cannot be connected to the incident in question. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 9. This Court observes that the present case pertains to an incident, which occurred, allegedly on account of apprehension on the part of the accused, that the complainant party was instrumental in getting the liquor of the accused seized; the learned Trial Court, passed the impugned judgment dated 20.06.1996, against which the present challenge has been laid by the appellant-State, to the extent of acquittal part thereof. 10. 10. This Court observes that from the record, it is clear that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly with respect to the nature of the weapon used, identity of the assailant, and exact location of the incident. The evidence of the principal witnesses— P.W.1 (Bhom Singh), P.W.2 (Manohar Singh), P.W.4 (Sangram Singh), and P.W.6 (Kesari Singh)—shows a lack of consistency in their version as to which accused inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased Kalyan Singh, and with what weapon. 10.1.This Court finds that P.W.2 initially stated in his deposition that accused-respondent Narwar Singh struck Kalyan Singh with an axe, and later the same witness stated in his cross- examination that accused-respondent Narwar Singh hit him with a lath. Further, in the oral information (Ex.P.1) and the FIR (Ex.P.2), there is no mention of an axe being used in the assault. This discrepancy regarding the primary weapon of offence used by a principal accused goes to the root of the prosecution’s case. 10.2.This Court further finds that while P.W.2 alleged that accused-respondent Narwar Singh struck Kalyan Singh on the head with the Moond of an axe, on the other hand, P.W.4 in his deposition clearly stated that it was Manohar Singh (P.W.2) who inflicted the head injury on Kalyan Singh with an axe. This statement contradicts the prosecution’s story and is not shaken in cross-examination. Thus, there is a direct conflict between prosecution witnesses themselves as to who delivered the fatal blow. 10.3.This Court further finds that Bhom Singh (P.W.1) mentioned that Narwar Singh hit Kalyan Singh on the head with an axe, while Devi Singh and Kishan Singh gave lath blows. However, in his statement to police, there is no detail about the body part where the injuries were caused, and no mention of an axe at all. Such significant omissions render his testimony unreliable. 10.4. This Court further finds that P.W.2 and P.W.1 claimed that the incident occurred outside their house. However, P.W.5 (Tej Singh) and P.W.3 (Nirbay Singh) stated that the altercation took place outside the house of accused-respondent Devi Singh, and that it was P.W.2 and Devi Singh who were initially fighting. Furthermore, Naksha Mauka which indicates the location of the incident away from where the complainant claimed. However, P.W.5 (Tej Singh) and P.W.3 (Nirbay Singh) stated that the altercation took place outside the house of accused-respondent Devi Singh, and that it was P.W.2 and Devi Singh who were initially fighting. Furthermore, Naksha Mauka which indicates the location of the incident away from where the complainant claimed. Furthermore, P.W.1 and P.W.4 admitted that the houses are 150–200 feet apart, making it unlikely that the incident occurred exactly as claimed by the prosecution. 10.5.This Court also finds that Dr. Ashok Sarupriya (P.W.14), who examined the deceased, noted multiple injuries including a cut wound, fracture on the head and a cut on the left ear. However, the prosecution failed to produce any forensic report linking the recovered weapons (axe, lath, stick) to these injuries. There were also no bloodstain evidence or serological report to corroborate the use of those weapons by the accused-respondents. The recovery of weapons thus remained unconnected to the offence. 10.6. This Court finds that there were injuries received by the accused-respondent Devi Singh, which were found on record (Ex.P.7), suggesting a possibility of a mutual assault, and thus creating a plausible doubt over the prosecution’s version. Moreover, the testimony of P.W.4 (Sangram Singh), who stated that it was Manohar Singh (P.W.2) who struck Kalyan Singh with an axe, has remained consistent in cross-examination and has not been adequately explained or contradicted by the prosecution . 11. This Court is conscious of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnegowda & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka, (2017) 13 SCC 98 , wherein it was observed that “witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice” and when the evidence of the witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions, then an irresistible conclusion is that the evidence of such witnesses cannot become a basis to convict the accused and it is a duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of the evidence on record. 12. This Court also observes that the prosecution story was not in consonance with the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence produced during the trial, in order to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondents and there is also a possible view of innocence of the accused- respondents. 13. 12. This Court also observes that the prosecution story was not in consonance with the testimonies of the witnesses and the evidence produced during the trial, in order to prove a case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondents and there is also a possible view of innocence of the accused- respondents. 13. This Court is of the considered view that in circumstances such as the present, judicial scrutiny must be guided by the quality rather than the quantity of the testimonies adduced. Where significant contradictions are apparent in the statements of the alleged witnesses, particularly concerning material aspects required to establish the culpability of the accused-respondents, the benefit of such doubt must necessarily enure to the advantage of the accused-respondents. 14. 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. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 985/2010 decided on 19.04.2024), as hereunder-: Mallappa & Ors. (Supra): “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as: (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. (Supra): “38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to 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. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That 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.” 15. This Court further observes that the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of acquittal of the accused-respondents which in the given circumstances, is justified in law, because as per the settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, to the effect that the judgment of the Trial Court can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when it demonstrates an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in arriving at such decision; but in the present case, the learned Trial Court, before passing the impugned judgment had examined each and every witnesses at a considerable length and duly analysed the documents produced before it, coupled with examination of the oral as well as documentary evidence, and thus, the impugned judgment suffers from no perversity or error of law or fact, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 16. 16. This Court also observes that the scope of interference in the acquittal order passed by the learned Trial Court is very limited, and if the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court demonstrates a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment, and thus, on that count also, the impugned judgment deserves no interference by this Court in the instant appeal. 17. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case as well as in light of the aforementioned precedent laws, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting any interference by this Court. 18. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed 19. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A Cr.P.C./481 B.N.S.S., each of the accused-respondents are directed to furnish a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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 soon as they would be called upon to do so. 20. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith. 21. This Court is thankful to Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, who has rendered her assistance as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the accused-respondents, in the present adjudication. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-