ORDER : Rajendra Kumar Vani, J. This appeal under Section 378(i) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.01.2003 passed in Criminal Case No.473/2001 (State of M.P. vs. Maniram and another) by Shri Umesh Kumar Shrivastava Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhnadone whereby respondents Maniram and Premalal have been acquitted of offence under Sections 325 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Respondent No.1 Maniram expired on 24.06.2011, therefore, the appeal so far as it relates to respondent No.1 Maniram stands abated. Now, this appeal is being heard on behalf of respondent No.2 Premalal only. 3. As per the prosecution story, on 25.05.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., when complainant Dasru (PW-1) went to Village Kedalpur to bring her wife Sukumbai back with him, she refused to go with him, at that time he slapped her. On this, the accused persons, the sons of former husband of Sukumbai, caused injuries to the complainant by means of lathis. The incident was witnessed by Rangwani Gond (PW-2) and Ummu Gond (PW-3). Thereafter, on a complaint made by the complainant, the FIR got registered at Police Station Dhanaura. The matter got investigated and charge-sheet was filed before the Court. 4. Learned trial Court framed the charges against the accused persons for commission of offence under Sections 325 and 325/34 of the IPC. They abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 07 witnesses, namely, Dasru (PW-1), Rangwani (PW-2), Ummu (PW-3), Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sailam (PW-4), Siyaram (PW-5), R.K. Raghuwanshi (PW-6) and Rajendra Singh (PW-7). 6. Learned trial Court after recording of evidence of both the parties acquitted the accused persons hence, this appeal. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the present appellants that the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the present respondent Premlal. Respondent Premlal is the son of Sukumbai and respondent Maniram was the nephew of Sukumbai and as per the story of prosecution injured Dasru (PW- 1) was visiting the house of Sukumbai to bring her with him because he happens to be the husband of Sukumbai. Respondent Premlal is the son of Sukumbai and respondent Maniram was the nephew of Sukumbai and as per the story of prosecution injured Dasru (PW- 1) was visiting the house of Sukumbai to bring her with him because he happens to be the husband of Sukumbai. The learned trial Court ought to have examined the evidence in respect of causing voluntary injury to the victim and on that point independent witnesses namely Dasru (PW-1), Rangwani (PW-2) and Rammu (PW-3) remained intact in their cross- examination. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Sailam (PW-4) has supported the version of the prosecution by depicting the injuries sustained by Dasru (PW-1). He has also uttered before the trial Court that in x-ray examination he found a fracture in right hand of Dasru (PW-1), therefore, the prosecution has established the case that the respondents have caused grievous injury voluntarily to victim Dasru (PW-1). In this regard, witnesses R.K. Raghuwanshi (PW-6) and Rajendra Singh (PW-7), the Investigating Officer and the Scriber of the FIR have also supported the police proceedings during the investigation. Siyaram (PW-5) who is the witness of seizure memo Ex.P- 4 and Ex. P-5 did not support the story of the prosecution and has turned hostile. The learned trial Court given benefit of doubt to the respondents which is perverse, illegal and liable to be set aside. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record. 9. It revealed from the statement of Dasru (PW-1) that Nanhelal, who earlier had solemnized marriage with Sukumbai, is alive. Though, he stated that he solemnized the marriage with Sukumbai on 26.03.1992 in Panchayat, but there is no evidence on record of this fact. No witness or any documentary evidence has been adduced in support of the statement that he has got solemnized marriage with Sukumbai in Panchayat on 26.03.1992. If the erstwhile husband of Sukumbai namely Nanhelal is alive, then the genesis of the crime itself becomes doubtful. Rangwani (PW-2) has categorically stated in her cross-examination that Dasru (PW-1) was under the effect of liquor at the time of incident and he is relative (Samdhi) of Dasru (PW-1). Ummu (PW-3) himself is not an eyewitness to the incident. He admitted in the cross-examination that Dasru (PW-1) was willing to marry with Sukumbai and he tried for the same for several days. 10. Ummu (PW-3) himself is not an eyewitness to the incident. He admitted in the cross-examination that Dasru (PW-1) was willing to marry with Sukumbai and he tried for the same for several days. 10. There is no independent witness of the incident examined by the prosecution. On the contrary, the defence has examined document Ex. D-1 which is a report of non cognizable offence lodged by Sukumbai on the date of incident i.e. 25.05.2001 in which it is alleged that Dasru (PW-1) who is the victim of this case has caused injury to Sukumbai by means of lathi/danda, but the prosecution has suppressed this document and the medical report of Sukumbai. Under these circumstances, the veracity of the prosecution story becomes doubtful. On this count, the learned trial Court has given the benefit of doubt to the respondents cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 has held as under:- "11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 , a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p.432, para 42) ‘42. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words : (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p.432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.’ ” 40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 8.1. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows : (SCC p. 584, para 8) “8. … 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.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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." 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 5 SCC 433 has held as under:- "9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and !aw. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after re- appreciating the evidence If the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused." 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 has 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. 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."... 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 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. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 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. 15. Keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid cases, the evidence has been tested on the touchstone of the principles enunciated therein, coupled with a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, as stated earlier the appeal filed on behalf of the State Government against the acquittal of the respondent No.2 Premalal is not found to be tenable. 16. Ex-consequentia, the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant/State being bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.