JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. Present Criminal Appeal 352 of 1996 and Criminal Revisional Application No.114 of 1996 impugn the judgment and order dated 12.3.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No.190 of 1995 whereby the sole accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE read with Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT . 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.6.1995, at about 4.30 a.m. in the morning, deceased Bhartuji Shankaji was sleeping on the cot in the open ground outside his house. His younger brother Govindji was also sleeping on the Varandah about 2 ft away. It is further the case of the prosecution that the respondent accused had come there with dharia in his hand and started assaulting deceased Bharthuji while he was sleeping. The respondent accused is alleged to have inflicted four fatal blows on the deceased, which had caused death of the deceased. The prosecution case further is that while the assault was being taken place, brother of the deceased Govindji Shankaji shouted loudly. Upon hearing the shouts, cousin brother of the deceased who was residing in a house opposite to the house of the deceased woke up and immediately rushed to the place of assault. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the respondent accused ran away. That at the time of assault, the brother, cousin brother, uncle and aunt were at the place of assault. It is further the case of the prosecution that the family members of the deceased sat near the body of the deceased till 7.30 a.m. Thereafter, the cousin brother of the deceased Mathurji Bhikhaji Thakore went to one Meruji in the village and upon his advice, proceeded to go to Rajpur Police Chowky where he informed about the incident to the Head Constable Abuji Motiji (PW-9). Thereafter, both these persons proceeded to Kadi Police Station and informed about the incident to the Police Sub Inspector in-charge of the police station and an FIR came to be lodged against the respondent accused. That thereafter, Head Constable Abuji Motiji along with complainant Mathurji Shankaji proceeded back to the village and went in search of the respondent-accused. Thereafter, both these persons proceeded to Kadi Police Station and informed about the incident to the Police Sub Inspector in-charge of the police station and an FIR came to be lodged against the respondent accused. That thereafter, Head Constable Abuji Motiji along with complainant Mathurji Shankaji proceeded back to the village and went in search of the respondent-accused. PW-9 Abuji Motiji upon searching the village and nearby areas while following the leads available to them, caught the respondent accused from the sim of village Chandarda. The respondent accused was thereafter brought to the Gram Panchayat office where PSI Vasantbhai Solanki was present along with other persons of the village and the respondent accused came to be arrested for the offences charged. Since the respondent accused pleaded not guilty, the case was put for trial and came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.190 of 1995. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and produced the documentary evidence on record. After closing of the evidence, the statement of the respondent accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. After hearing the arguments on behalf of the parties, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.3.1996 was pleased to acquit the respondent accused of the charges under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT . Aggrieved, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.352 of 1996 and the complainant has filed Criminal Revision Application No.114 of 1996. 3. Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that the incident of assault by the respondent accused was witnessed by the brother of the deceased, cousin brother of the deceased and uncle and aunt of the deceased. He submits that these four are the eye witnesses to the incident. He further submits that the complainant PW-3, who is cousin brother of the deceased, has categorically stated as to what had happened at the time of incident. He submits that the said version is consistent in the depositions of the other eye witnesses, namely PW-4 Govindji Shankaji and PW-11 Jamnaben Bhikhaji. Learned APP submits that their evidence is unimpeachable and clearly shows the guilt of the respondent accused. He submits that the said version is consistent in the depositions of the other eye witnesses, namely PW-4 Govindji Shankaji and PW-11 Jamnaben Bhikhaji. Learned APP submits that their evidence is unimpeachable and clearly shows the guilt of the respondent accused. He submits that even the physical injuries sustained by the deceased corroborate the evidence of the eye witnesses. He submits that it is also brought on record that the respondent accused was caught from the sim of village Chandarda along with the weapon of the assault i.e. dharia. He further submits that the evidence brought on record shows that when the respondent accused came to be arrested, he was still wearing the bloodstained cloths and the weapon dharia was also bloodstained. He further submits that the blood group of the bloodstains found on the clothes of the respondent accused as well as on the dharia matches with the blood group of the deceased and the blood which was collected from the ground at the spot of the incident. Learned APP further submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence on record and holding that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses at the time of incident was unnatural and, therefore, the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in taking such a view. Learned APP submits that there can be no straitjacket formula for the conduct of the eye witnesses, especially when the assault had taken place in front of the eye witnesses. He submits that the conduct of all the eye witnesses was natural and cannot be doubted. Learned APP further submits that once it has been proved that the witnesses produced by the prosecution were the persons present at the place of assault and that they had witnessed the assault, such an evidence ought not to have been discarded by the learned Trial Court. Learned APP finally submits that the evidence brought on record clearly proves the guilt of the respondent accused and that the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondent accused for the charges framed. Learned APP, therefore, submits that the present Criminal Appeal be allowed and the respondent accused be convicted for the offences under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE along with Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT . Learned APP, therefore, submits that the present Criminal Appeal be allowed and the respondent accused be convicted for the offences under Section 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE along with Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT . In support of his contentions, learned APP has relied judgment the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1675 of 2015 dated 22.1.2025 wherein it has been held that the benefit of doubt must be based on rational and cogent grounds. Merely because the eye witnesses are family members, their testimony cannot be discarded. Learned APP has further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Edakkandi Dineshan Alias P. Dineshan and others v. State of Kerala , reported in (2025) 3 SCC 273 , wherein it has been held that minor aberrations do not render the testimony unworthy. 4. Mr. Prithviraj Gohil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant in Criminal Revision Application No.114 of 1996 while adopting the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further submits that the complainant (PW-3) is an eye witness to the incident. He further submits that all the three witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case have deposed about the incident in the same way. There is no inconsistency in the narration of the incident by these witnesses, as it has taken place. He further submits that the corroborative evidence in the nature of medical evidence with regard to the injuries as well as the blood group of the bloodstains and the blood group of the deceased have also matched. He further submits that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly points out the offence being committed by the respondent accused. He further submits that there was a dispute between the respondent accused and the deceased with respect to the right of way. The respondent accused had threatened the deceased a few days before the date of incident that he would kill him. He submits that the respondent accused was also caught from the sim of adjoining village Chandarda along with the weapon of assault, i.e. dharia. He submits that the accused was duly brought to the Gram Panchayat office and came to be arrested for the offences. The learned counsel submits that no fault can be found from the conduct of the eye witnesses. He submits that the accused was duly brought to the Gram Panchayat office and came to be arrested for the offences. The learned counsel submits that no fault can be found from the conduct of the eye witnesses. He submits that all the eye witnesses are family members of the deceased who were present at the time of assault outside the house since it was early morning. He submits that PW-4, brother of the deceased, had just returned after doing labour work at night and woke up when the assault took place. He was also sleeping near the deceased. Learned counsel submits that PW-4 Govindji Shankaji had witnessed the act of assault before him from a distance of 2- 3 ft. Learned counsel submits that his evidence cannot be discarded just because of his conduct. He submits that the said witness may not have intervened at the time of assault, but there cannot be any doubt that the said witness was present at the time of incident and had seen the whole incident. He submits that there is no variation or discrepancy in the narration of all the witnesses with respect to the occurrence of the incident. Learned counsel submits that despite all the cogent evidence being brought on record, duly corroborated by the medical evidence and FSL report, the learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent accused. He submits that there is overwhelming evidence on record to convict the accused for the offences charged Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the eye witnesses at the time of incident cannot negate the eye witnesses account. He submits that once, it is cogently proved that the respondent accused had murdered the deceased, the conduct of the eye witnesses pales into insignificance and the same cannot override the evidence on record for acquitting the accused. He, therefore, submits that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and discarding the evidence while acquitting the respondent accused. He, therefore, submits that the Criminal Revision Application be allowed and the respondent accused be convicted for the offences charged for. He, therefore, submits that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record and discarding the evidence while acquitting the respondent accused. He, therefore, submits that the Criminal Revision Application be allowed and the respondent accused be convicted for the offences charged for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:- (1)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala and others reported in (2022) 18 SCC 683 ; (2)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh , reported in (2021) 5 SCC 543 ; (3)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Nageswara Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 251 ; (4)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. The State of Bihar reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402 ; (5)Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Jivrajbhai Ramjibhai Koli reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 248179 . 5. Per contra, Mr. Pratik Barot, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent accused, submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the conduct of the eye witnesses. He submits that all the witnesses have given the mechanical version of occurrence of the incident and assault. He submits that if the medical evidence on record is perused along with the conduct of the eye witnesses, the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that in the present case, the place of occurrence is surrounded by many houses. The incident had taken place at 4.30 a.m. in the morning. After the shouts by the brother of the deceased (PW-4) as per the evidence brought on record, only the family members of the deceased had woken up and had come to the place of assault. He submits that despite there being evidence on record that many other residents of the nearby were sleeping outside their houses being month of June, nobody had woken up and come to rescue the deceased. He submits that even the eye witnesses, i.e. PW-3, PW-4 and PW- 11, have not intervened while the assault was taking place. He submits that despite there being evidence on record that many other residents of the nearby were sleeping outside their houses being month of June, nobody had woken up and come to rescue the deceased. He submits that even the eye witnesses, i.e. PW-3, PW-4 and PW- 11, have not intervened while the assault was taking place. He submits that all the eye witnesses are closely related to the deceased, they are real brother and cousin brother of the deceased. It is brought on record by the prosecution that these witnesses have immediately reached to the place of incident but none of them have tried to either save the deceased or to catch the respondent accused which is a natural human conduct. He further submits that it is brought on record that after the assault in presence of all these eye witnesses, the respondent accused is supposed to have gone away. Learned counsel submits that if the further conduct of the eye witnesses is to be seen from the record, there is a deposition of these witnesses which shows that the name of the respondent accused was never revealed to any person who had thereafter come and seen the deceased till 6.00 a.m. in the morning. He submits that it is the case of the complainant as well as the other eye witnesses that they have not revealed the name of the accused till the FIR was lodged at Kadi Police Station at 7.30 a.m. in the morning. He submits that there is no explanation for this conduct about not revealing the name of the accused to anybody and the same has gone unexplained in the evidence brought on record. Learned counsel submits that this conduct renders the prosecution case complete doubtful. He further submits that it is the prosecution case that the respondent accused has been arrested from the sim of village Chandarda, but however in the statement of the respondent accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he has stated that he was working in his field when he was caught by the Head Constable, which is in the same village. He, therefore, submits there is discrepancy with respect to the place where the respondent accused has been caught. He, therefore, submits there is discrepancy with respect to the place where the respondent accused has been caught. Learned counsel further submits that if the prosecution case is to be accepted, then the respondent accused was still wearing the bloodstained clothes and having bloodstained dharia in his hand when he was arrested at 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon. As per the prosecution case, from 4.30 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. the respondent accused was wearing the same clothes and carrying the same weapon. He submits that such an evidence is highly improbable. The learned counsel further submits that if the conduct of the real brother of the deceased is examined, the evidence brought on record shows that he was lying on the cot about 2 ft away from the deceased when the assault took place. It is his deposition that when the assault took place, he woke up, however he has not seen the accused coming for assault and when the assault took place, he has only shouted and no other reaction has been attributed. The said eye witness PW-4 has not either intervened nor taken any steps to rescue his brother from the assault. Further, PW-3, who is the cousin brother of the deceased and residing opposite to the house of the deceased and who has come upon hearing the shouts of PW-4, has also while witnessing the assault not taken any step either to intervene or to rescue the deceased. The learned counsel submits that the third eye witness PW-11 Jamnaben had witnessed the incident sitting from her house and that when she reached the place of incident, the respondent accused had already run away. Learned counsel submits that in the depositions of all the three eye witnesses, it is an admitted position that all these three witnesses have not disclosed the name of the accused to anybody. He submits that if assuming that the respondent accused had assaulted the deceased, there is no reason whatsoever for the eye witnesses to withhold the name of the accused, especially when according to the prosecution case, he had motive to kill the deceased. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the conduct of these eye eye witnesses is unnatural. Any prudent person would not have behaved in such a way at the time of occurrence of the incident. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the conduct of these eye eye witnesses is unnatural. Any prudent person would not have behaved in such a way at the time of occurrence of the incident. He, therefore, submits that it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submits that except the incident of giving threat to the deceased, no other action has been attributed to the accused prior to the date of incident. The dispute with respect to the right of way was also properly adjudicated by the revenue authorities upon the complaint being made by the deceased. He submits that the threat incident was not such so as to prompt the respondent accused to kill the deceased. Right of way as being claimed was not the personal right of way but was available to all the residents of the locality where the respondent accused was residing. He, therefore, submits that the motive behind the crime is not plausible and sufficient enough to perpetrate the crime. The learned counsel submits that PW-7 and PW-8 who are the panch witnesses in respect of the panchnama of recovery of clothes of the accused and weapon of assault, have also been declared hostile by the prosecution. He submits that their testimony does not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel submits that after the said panch witnesses have been declared hostile, the said panchnama of recovery of clothes and weapon from the accused has also not been proved through the deposition of PW-12 i.e. the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel submits that therefore also, the arrest of the accused and the recovery of clothes and weapon has rendered the prosecution case doubtful and cannot be relied upon in evidence. The learned counsel further submits that in view thereof, even if the FSL report shows that the bloodstains on the clothes as well as on the weapon are of the same blood group as that of the deceased, the same cannot be taken into consideration by way of evidence. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the above submissions, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of the above submissions, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case. He further submits that the scope of Section 378 of Cr.P.C. is well settled. He submits that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal does not suffer from any patent perversity and is not based on misreading of any material evidence. He submits that the Appellate Court ought to interfere in the appeal only if guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence on record. He submits that in the present case, the Trial Court has taken a view that the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the conduct of the eye witnesses, which is consistent in the evidence on record He, therefore, submits that the view taken by the trial Court is just and proper and no other reasonable view is possible in the present case. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent accused has relied upon the following judgments:- (1)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 73556; (2)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa v. State of Karnataka reported 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 73129 ; (3)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka reported 2023 (0) AIJEL-SC 72558 ; (4)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suresha v. State of Karnataka reported 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 66286 ; (5)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala, reported 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 74641 ; (6)Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 66604; (7)Judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Hajabhai Chachiya v. State of Gujarat, reported 2012 (0) AIJEL-HC 227348 . 6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents and evidence on record. 7. The scope of interference in acquittal appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. by the Appellate Court is well circumscribed. 6. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the submissions and perused the documents and evidence on record. 7. The scope of interference in acquittal appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. by the Appellate Court is well circumscribed. Further, there is no limitation or restriction on the Appellate Court and it can reach to its own conclusion both on the question of law and facts. The Appellate Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal is also required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view and which can be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the Appellate Court finds that such a view is a possible view, it cannot overturn the order of acquittal on any different view which may also be possible. An order of acquittal can be interfered with by the Appellate Court only if it records a finding that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that no other conclusion is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record. 8. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has rendered a finding that the conduct of the eye witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 is unnatural. The Trial Court has held that that none of these eye witnesses who were present at the time of incident have intervened during the assault. The said eye witnesses have only witnessed the incident. The learned Trial Court has further held that such a conduct is unnatural. PW-4 was at a distance of 2- 4 ft away as per the evidence on record and PW-3 (complainant) had immediately reached the place of incident from his house which is about 27 ft away. Further, none of these two eye witnesses have tried to stop the respondent accused from running away from the place of incident. The eye witnesses as well as the respondent accused are residents of the same locality and residing nearby. Yet the evidence on record reveals that the eye witnesses have not revealed the name of the accused to any of the persons of the locality who had come to inquire about the incident in the morning. Further, the Trial Court has held that the name of the respondent accused was revealed for the first time in the complaint filed with the police at the police station. Further, the Trial Court has held that the name of the respondent accused was revealed for the first time in the complaint filed with the police at the police station. Further, the eye witnesses have deposed that they have not disclosed the name of the accused to anybody till filing of the FIR. The learned Trial Court has recorded a finding that though it is a small locality, the police have not recorded the statement of any of the neighbours nearby in respect of the incident in question. The learned Trial Court has further recorded the finding that the panchas of the panchnama in respect of the recovery of clothes and weapon have stated in their depositions that the police had only showed them the bloodstained clothes and bloodstained weapon, but they have not seen the accused. The said panchas have been declared hostile by the prosecution during the trial. The learned Trial Court has further held that the arrest panchnama of the accused is also doubtful. Further, the deposition of PW-9 Abuji Motiji, Head Constable, is also having material contradictions in his deposition vis-a-vis the record and it cannot be relied upon. The learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that it is rendered doubtful as to whether the eye witnesses have actually witnessed the incident of assault. The learned Trial Court has held that even the time of incident is not properly proved and it is not possible that the complainant PW-3 and his parents who were woken up on hearing the shouts of PW-4 could have seen the complete incident of assault as per the deposition. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the respondent accused. 9. A perusal of the deposition of PW-3 Thakor Mathurji Bhikhaji, who is the complainant and cousin brother of the deceased, reveals that he was sleeping in the open outside his house at the time of incident. He further stated that at about 4.30 a.m. morning, he heard the shouts of PW-4, brother of the deceased. Upon hearing the shouts, he had woken up and immediately rushed to the place of incident, which was 27 ft away. He has deposed in respect of all the injuries which have been inflicted upon the deceased by the accused. He further stated that at about 4.30 a.m. morning, he heard the shouts of PW-4, brother of the deceased. Upon hearing the shouts, he had woken up and immediately rushed to the place of incident, which was 27 ft away. He has deposed in respect of all the injuries which have been inflicted upon the deceased by the accused. In his cross- examination, the said witness has deposed that he had woken up after hearing the shouts of PW-4 and that he had seen the whole incident from his cot. The said witness also deposed that at the time of assault, his parents as well as PW-4 Govindji Shankaji had come to the place of incident. He further stated that after the incident, he had gone to his house and did not come out till 6.00 a.m. He has admitted that he has not intervened while the assault was taking place. He has stated that the respondent accused ran away after the assault. He has further contradicted himself by stating in the cross-examination that he was sitting with PW-4 at the time of incident. He has further stated that the respondent accused had inflicted 4 to 5 blows which he had seen. He has also admitted that PW-4 who is brother of the deceased, was 3 ft away from the deceased when the incident had taken place, but PW-4 had not intervened to save his brother from the assault. The deposition further reveals that this witness came out of his house after 6.00 a.m. and had gone to meet Meruji. He has also revealed to Meruji that his cousin brother has been killed, but he has not given any details about the incident to said Meruji. Deceased Bharthuji had only shouted once during the assault. 10. The said evidence of PW-3 – complainant in the considered opinion of this Court does not inspire confidence. There are major discrepancies in the deposition. Time of assault is about 4.30 a.m. in the morning. The witness has stated that he woke up after the shouts of the PW-4 and thereafter he had witnessed the incident from his cot. He has described the full assault which is not probable if a person has woken up hearing the shouts after the alleged assault started. Further, it appears that the said witness has tried to corroborate the material evidence in his deposition. He has described the full assault which is not probable if a person has woken up hearing the shouts after the alleged assault started. Further, it appears that the said witness has tried to corroborate the material evidence in his deposition. This witness has also admitted that he has not gone to the place of incident and intervened during the assault and that he had reached the place of incident after the respondent accused had run away. The said witness has also deposed that he and his parents had come to the place of incident after the said incident took place and thereafter, went back to their house. He has further stated that thereafter, he has come out of his house only at 6.00 a.m. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of the PW-3 complainant as it does not inspire confidence and it cannot be said that the said witness was an eye witness to the assault. Further, the conduct of the said PW-3 is unnatural. 11. A perusal of the deposition of PW-4 Govindji Shankaji reveals that he is brother of the deceased and was about 2-3 ft away from the deceased at the time of assault. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he had come back from the labour work at about 4 O’clock in the morning. The incident had happened at about 4.30 a.m. He was going to sleep on his cot, however woke when the assault took place. He has described the assault on the deceased. He has not filed complaint, but his statement came to be recorded by the police. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that cousin brother PW-3 Mathurji had told about this incident to one Meruji. This witness has categorically stated in the examination that his deceased brother never shouted at the time of assault and that he had never stated in his deposition that at the time of assault, his brother had shouted. This evidence is in contradiction to the statement made by the PW-3 complainant that the deceased had shouted during the assault. Further, this witness has stated that all the nearby neighbours had assembled at the place of assault and a few relatives had also sat with this witness after the assault. This evidence is in contradiction to the statement made by the PW-3 complainant that the deceased had shouted during the assault. Further, this witness has stated that all the nearby neighbours had assembled at the place of assault and a few relatives had also sat with this witness after the assault. This witness has not stated that he had intervened in the assault to save his brother and has remained silent in respect of his role at the time of assault. 12. A perusal of the deposition of third eye witness PW-11 Jamnaben Bhikhaji, who is aunt of the deceased and mother of PW-3 complainant, reveals that they were sleeping when the assault took place and had woken up upon hearing the shouts of PW-4. She stated that they reached the place of incident after the accused had run away. She further stated that after the assault, she, her husband, her son PW-3, and PW-4 were only present at the place of assault. She has witnessed the assault from her house which is about 27 ft away. This witness has further stated in her cross-examination that PW-3 was sleeping next to her. After hearing the shouts, first PW-3 had woken up and thereafter she had woken up. She has stated that after waking up, PW-3 Mathurji immediately ran to the deceased. This evidence is in contradiction to the deposition of PW-3 Mathruji who has stated that after waking up, he had witnessed the incident sitting on his cot and thereafter, he had gone to the deceased. Further, this witness has also stated that the incident was never informed to anybody. Further, all the neighbours had come after the incident had taken place and simply went away after seeing the dead body. 13. The prosecution has examined Head Constable Abuji Motiji as PW-9. A perusal of the deposition of this witness reveals that PW-3 complainant had first approached him and informed him about the incident. This witness thereafter had accompanied the complainant to Kadi Police Station where the complaint came to be lodged with respect to the incident of murder. This witness has stated that he had arrested the respondent accused from the sim of village Chandarda. This witness thereafter had accompanied the complainant to Kadi Police Station where the complaint came to be lodged with respect to the incident of murder. This witness has stated that he had arrested the respondent accused from the sim of village Chandarda. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that they had started searching of the respondent accused at 9.00 a.m. in the morning and after 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon, they had caught the respondent accused at village Chandarda. He has admitted that no panchnama was done in respect of this at the place where the accused was caught by them. This witness has stated that thereafter, he had brought the accused to the Panchayat office at around 4.00 p.m.. He has also stated that he had not informed the PSI about the arrest of the accused. He had gone in search of the accused and arrested him on the instructions of PSI who is the investigating officer in the case. 14. The prosecution has also examined the Investigating officer Vasantbhai Solanki as PW-12. This witness has deposed that he has recorded the complaint as well as the statements of various persons in respect of the incident. He has also sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem. He has done panchnama of the clothes of the accused and the weapon recovered from him. This witness has stated in his deposition that he has recorded the statements of PW-4, PW-11, Bhikhaji Saluji and Majuben Mangaji. Further, this witness has stated that after collecting the evidence, he has filed the charge-sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has also recorded the statement of Meruji Rajaji who was mentioned in the complaint as he has not examined Meruji Rajaji as prosecution witness in the case since he has not supported the prosecution case. This witness who is the investigating officer has admitted in the cross-examination that he has not recorded the statement of any of the neighbours nearby who had come to the place of the incident, as stated by the PW-4 in his deposition. This witness has further admitted in his cross-examination that PW-4 Govindji Shankaji in his statement has only recorded that after the assault, the deceased had fallen down from the cot. This witness has further admitted in his cross-examination that PW-4 Govindji Shankaji in his statement has only recorded that after the assault, the deceased had fallen down from the cot. He admits that PW-4 had not stated that after falling down from the cot, the deceased was further assaulted on his head and back. It would be pertinent to mention that this statement is in contradiction to the deposition of PW-4 who has stated in his deposition that after the deceased fell down from the cot, he was assaulted on the head as well as on the back by the respondent accused. The said contradiction is a material contradiction. Further, this witness states that the accused was brought by PW-9 to the Gram panchayat office at 5.00 p.m. This statement creates a discrepancy as PW-9 Head Constable in his deposition has stated that the accused was brought to the Gram panchayat office at 4.00 p.m. when the PSI was present. 15. In the present case, the recovery panchnama in respect of the clothes and weapon used by the respondent accused has not been duly proved. The panch witnesses have stated in the depositions that the police had showed them only the bloodstained weapon and clothes. They have been declared hostile by the prosecution. However, the said panchnama has also not been duly proved by the Investigating officer in his deposition. In view thereof, the recovery in respect of the clothes and weapon is rendered doubtful. It has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that once such recovery panchnama is rendered doubtful, the finding in respect of blood group of the bloodstains matching with the accused pales into insignificance. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence as brought on record, does not inspire confidence and it does not conclusively prove that the respondent accused had assaulted the deceased. Further, the conduct of the brother of the deceased about 2 ft away from the deceased as well as the other prosecution witnesses also does not inspire confidence and cannot be said to be a natural conduct. There was no attempt at all to intervene or save the deceased who was real brother of PW-4 as well as cousin brother of PW-3. There was no attempt at all to intervene or save the deceased who was real brother of PW-4 as well as cousin brother of PW-3. Further, the evidence on record reveals that there was no attempt by any of the eye witnesses to run after the accused and catch him after the incident. Also, the evidence on record shows that none of the neighbours who were also sleeping outside their houses in the open had woken up after hearing the shouts of PW-4, except PW-3 and his family. The evidence on record also shows that the persons whose statements were recorded by the investigating officer and who have not supported the prosecution case, have not been examined. Further, this Court finds no perversity or patent illegality can be attributed to the impugned judgment. The Trial Court has recorded cogent reasons which are based on the evidence on record. No interference is called for. The present Criminal Appeal as well as the Criminal Revision Application are devoid of merits and are accordingly DISMISSED. 17. The record and proceedings of the case be returned to the Trial Court.