JUDGMENT : RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Apurva Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Addl.P.P. for the State as also perused the trial court records. 2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated 17.04.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) whereby and where under the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Sessions Court, Barh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) has been pleased to acquit respondent nos. 2 to 7 of the charges under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act in connection with Sessions Trial No.478 of 2009/908 of 2009, G.R. No.713 of 2008 arising out of Ghoshwari P.S. Case No.37 of 2008. Prosecution Case 3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Ramdeo Mahto who has been examined as PW-1 in the present case. In his fardbeyan said to have been recorded by S.I. Sona Prasad Singh, S.H.O. of Ghoswari Police Station, Patna on 12.06.2008 at 17.00 hrs, the informant has stated that on 12.06.2008 at about 4.00 PM when he was returning his home, he heard a hulla and also heard that Chintu had opened fire. On enquiry from his family members, he came to know that Chintu Mahto and Papul Mahto were saying that they had been abused by Pradeep. In the meanwhile, Vishnudeo Pandit came and said that Pramod Mahto was calling him. Informant reached the house of Pramod Mahto and saw that Lalu Mahto, Papul Mahto and Chintu Mahto were present there with pistol in their hand. Bhushan Mahto, Ashwini Mahto and Pramod Mahto were also present. On seeing the informant, both the brothers Chintu and Papul Mahto started abusing him. In the meantime the son of the informant also came there. On seeing the seriousness of the situation, when the informant started to push his son and started moving towards his house then Bhushan Mahto, Aswhwini Mahto and Pramod Mahto instigated the other accused persons to kill them. The informant further alleged that Lalu Mahto fired one shot which hit the informant’s son due to which he fell down and died on the spot. 4. The informant further alleged that Lalu Mahto fired one shot which hit the informant’s son due to which he fell down and died on the spot. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Ramdeo Mahto (PW-1), the S.H.O., Ghoswari P.S. registered Ghoswari P.S. Case No.37 of 2008 dated 12.06.2008 under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 5. After completion of investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer (in short ‘I.O.’) of the case submitted a charge- sheet against five accused persons namely, Chintu Mahto, Papul Mahto, Lallu Mahto, Bhushan Mahto and Pramod Mahto under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act vide charge- sheet no.88/08 dated 11.09.2008 and against one Ashwani separate charge-sheet no.01/09 dated 09.01.2009 has been submitted by the I.O. The learned A.C.J.M.-Barh vide his order dated 15.09.2008 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against five accused persons namely, Chintu Mahto, Papul Mahto, Lallu Mahto, Bhushan Mahto and Pramod Mahto and on 07.02.2009 the learned Magistrate also took cognizance of the offence under Section 302/34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, having found the case triable by court of Sessions, committed the case to the court of Sessions and the case was registered as Session Trial NO.478 of 2009/908 of 2009. 6. The accused persons were explained the charges, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited several documents in support of its case. 6. The accused persons were explained the charges, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited several documents in support of its case. The list of witnesses and the documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution are as under:- List of prosecution witnesses vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k& 1 jkenso egrksa vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k& 2 fot; egrksa vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k& 3 fnyhi dqekj ¼vkjksi i= esa of.kZr lk{kh ugha gS½ vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k& 4 MkW0 fujkatu feJk vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k& 5 ,l- vkbZ- lksuk izlkn flag vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k& 6 vthr izlkn flag dk lk{; djk;k x;k gSA List of Exhibits i zn”kZ & 1 QnZC;ku ij fnyhi dqekj dk gLrk{kj i zn”kZ & 1@1 /kesZUnz dqekj dk gLrk{kj i zn”kZ & 1@2 izeksn izlkn dk gLrk{kj ftUgsa vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k & 3 ds }kjk lkfcr fd;k x;kA i zn”kZ & 1@3 QnZc;ku ,l- vkbZ- lksuk izlkn ds fy[kkoV esaA i zn”kZ & 2 IkksLVekVZe fjiksVZ tks fd MkW0 fujatu feJk ds } kjk lkfcr fd;k Xk;kA i zn”kZ & 3 QnZC;ku i zn”kZ & 4 izo`f’V i zn”kZ & 5 QnZC;ku vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k& 6 ds }kjk lkfcr fd;k x;kA i zn”kZ & ¼x½ e`R;q leh{kk fjiksVZ i zn”kZ & 6 QkWeZy ,Q- vkbZ- vkj- 8. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which all of them claimed that they were falsely implicated in this case. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Findings of the learned trial Court 9. After examining the evidences available on the record, the learned trial court found that the cause of occurrence is questionable, the prosecution did not come out in a fair manner, there is material contradiction in the testimony of the eye witnesses, medical evidence is not consistent with eyewitness account of the occurrence and the place of occurrence has not been established. In the opinion of the learned trial court, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused persons, therefore, the learned trial acquitted the respondent nos.2 to 7 of the charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Submissions on behalf of the Informant-Appellant 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant-appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. Submissions on behalf of the Informant-Appellant 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the informant-appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. Learned Senior Counsel submits that learned trial court has failed to appreciate the unimpeachable evidence of the eye witnesses, namely, Ramdev Mahto (PW-1) who has fully corroborated the medical evidence as given by Dr. Niranjan Mishra (PW-4) who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and also proved the post-mortem report in course of trial. 11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned trial court committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that there were contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and failed to apply his judicious mind and in most mechanical manner passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused persons. Submissions on behalf of the State 12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that learned trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, acquitted them. Analysis of the findings of Learned Trial Court and consideration 13. In its finding, the learned trial court has recorded that from the evidence of PW-3 Dilip Kumar (not a charge-sheet witness), it appears that the fardbeyan was not recorded on 12.06.2008 rather it was recorded after one day. The FIR has been found ante-dated. 14. We have examined this finding of the learned trial court. In this regard, a perusal of the formal FIR (Exhibit-6) would show that the occurrence is said to have been reported to the police station on 12.06.2008 at 16.30 hours, however, the FIR was registered on 12.06.2008 at 22.00 hours. The learned A.C.J.M. has seen the formal FIR but the date mentioned therein has been overwritten. From the naked eyes, it may be found that there is an overwriting on the date. At this stage, we have gone through the evidence of PW-3. The learned trial court has rightly recorded in its finding that according to PW-3, he had signed on three papers at the place of occurrence, the first paper was the fardbeyan of his father, the second paper was the inquest report of the deceased Pradeep Mahto and the third document was challan of the dead body. The learned trial court has rightly recorded in its finding that according to PW-3, he had signed on three papers at the place of occurrence, the first paper was the fardbeyan of his father, the second paper was the inquest report of the deceased Pradeep Mahto and the third document was challan of the dead body. He has stated that he signed the first and second document within a period of half an hour whereas on the next day he had signed on third document at 8 O’clock. On the face of this statement of Dilip Kumar (PW-3) together with interpolated date on the formal FIR, this finding of the learned trial court cannot be said to be perversed. At the top of the fardbeyan, it is stated that Sona Prasad Singh (PW-5) has recorded it but in the bottom the name of scribe is Ajit Prasad Singh, S.I. (PW-6), it is therefore doubtful as to who recorded the fardbeyan. This is also noted that in the formal FIR, the officer in-charge of the police station has not mentioned the date of dispatch of the FIR to the court even as it is one of the statutory requirements under sub-section (1) of Section 157 Cr.P.C. There is an apparent interpolation in the date (13.06.2018) recorded in the order-sheet of the learned Magistrate showing receipt of the FIR. 15. The learned trial court has recorded another finding with regard to the place of occurrence. It has been held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence. In this regard, the evidence of the informant (PW-1) and that of his neighbour (PW-2) and another witness (PW-5) have been discussed by the learned trial court. According to PW-1, his son suffered the fire-arm shot and fell down in front of the Kirana shop which is near his house. Profused bleeding had taken place and he died. In his deposition, PW-1 has stated that his son had fallen down at a distance of 10 steps towards east to his house but PW-2 has stated that Pradeep (the deceased) had received the bullet at a distance of 4 steps towards south from his shop. The I.O. has stated that in the street the place of occurrence is adjacent north to the house of Jamun Mahto and south to the house of the deceased Pradeep Mahto besides the shop. The I.O. has stated that in the street the place of occurrence is adjacent north to the house of Jamun Mahto and south to the house of the deceased Pradeep Mahto besides the shop. The learned trial court has found that the informant PW (1) and his neighbour (PW-2) are giving two different places of occurrence. 16. We have noticed that the learned trial court has further found that in his examination-in-chief, PW-1 has stated that he apprehended that the accused persons would take away the dead body so he brought the dead body of Pradeep in the courtyard of his house. The dead body was lying in the courtyard for one hour but not much blood had fallen in the courtyard. On this point, the learned trial court has found that the I.O. (PW-5) has stated that he reached the place of occurrence at 5.00 PM on the date of occurrence but he did not find any material thing at the place of occurrence. He has also stated that he had not seen blood at the place of occurrence. He has stated that no witness told him that blood was falling at any other place, there was no blood in the courtyard of the informant and the informant had not shown him the place where the blood had fallen. He had also not shown his blood soaked clothes. The I.O. had not seized the blood soaked soil. For these reasons, the learned trial court took a view that the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. We have once again gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as regards the place of occurrence. It is evident that the place of occurrence has not been duly established by the prosecution. 17. The learned trial court has further found that the prosecution has not brought independent witnesses who were the next door neighbours of the informant. PW-1 has stated in paragraph ‘10’ of his evidence that when he returned to his house, there were 8-10 persons who were either members of the family or the neighbours. The learned trial court has held that the prosecution has withheld the material witnesses including the wife of the deceased who were present at the place of occurrence. PW-1 has stated in paragraph ‘10’ of his evidence that when he returned to his house, there were 8-10 persons who were either members of the family or the neighbours. The learned trial court has held that the prosecution has withheld the material witnesses including the wife of the deceased who were present at the place of occurrence. As regards the manner of the occurrence also, the learned trial court has, upon examining the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, held that while PW-1 is a witness of both the occurrences, PW-1 has stated that prior to the occurrence other accused persons had fired in the street which did not hit, but PW-2 has stated about the firing by accused Lallu Mahto only, he does not say about firing by others. Thus, the learned trial court found that there is material contradiction in the statement of the two eye witnesses. 18. The trial court has examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who claim themselves eye witnesses of the occurrence and held that neither PW-1 nor PW-2 was present at the time of occurrence rather they reached there only after the occurrence had taken place. The learned trial court held that if the informant and his son both were running in the street it was congested one and the accused persons were coming behind them firing then it seems highly improbable that the informant Ramdeo would not receive any injury. We do not find any perversity in this finding of the learned trial court. 19. On perusal of the deposition of the informant (PW-1), it appears that on the point of motive behind the occurrence this witness has stated that his son Pradeep (deceased) had passed comments against the sister of Papul Mahto and Chintu Mahto but in paragraph ‘26’ of his cross-examination he has stated that prior to the occurrence sister of the accused Ashwani was shot at and she had suffered a bullet for which a case was lodged in which this witness (PW-1) was an accused. He has further stated that apart from him, Thakur Mahto, Muni Ji, Kailash Mahto and his father were accused. 20. On this point, if the evidence of PW-2 is perused, it would be found that in paragraph ‘4’ of his deposition, PW-2 has stated that he lives in Karara which is his Nanihal. He has further stated that apart from him, Thakur Mahto, Muni Ji, Kailash Mahto and his father were accused. 20. On this point, if the evidence of PW-2 is perused, it would be found that in paragraph ‘4’ of his deposition, PW-2 has stated that he lives in Karara which is his Nanihal. His maternal grandfather was two brothers, namely, Arangi Mahto and Lala Mahto. He says that he had not seen Lala Mahto but this witness was suggested that Lala Mahto had gone to jail and he was convicted, the witness says that he has not heard so and denied the suggestion that he was knowingly suppressing this fact that his maternal grandfather Lala Mahto was an accused in the murder case of Thakur Mahto and in the said case Laxman Mahto who is the grandfather of Chintu and Papul had deposed as a witness whereafter all the accused were convicted and were awarded life imprisonment. 21. This Court finds that the defence has been able to demonstrate that there were prior enmity between the parties, PW-2 is an outsider. 22. This Court further finds that in the first line of fardbeyan, it is stated that it has been recorded by S.I. Sona Prasad Singh (PW-5) at the house of Ramdeo Mahto (PW-1) but in the foot of the petition name of the writer of fardbeyan is mentioned as Ajit Prasad Singh, S.I., Ghoswari (PW-6) but PW-3, Dilip Kumar (not a charge-sheet witness) has stated that the fardbeyan of his father was recorded by sub-inspector Sona Prasad Singh who was in Ghoswari police station and he identified the writing. When S.I. Ajit Prasad Singh (PW-6) came to depose, he has stated that the fardbeyan has been written by him. At his instance, the fardbeyan was marked Exhibit-5. On going through the deposition of PW-6, it is found that his examination-in-chief took place on 29 th November, 2012 but on that day it could not be completed. Thereafter, no further examination and cross-examination of this witness took place. The order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned trial court shows that despite several orders directing appearance of PW-6, the prosecution could not secure his presence. Ultimately, the prosecution evidence was closed on 09.10.2017. 23. Thereafter, no further examination and cross-examination of this witness took place. The order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned trial court shows that despite several orders directing appearance of PW-6, the prosecution could not secure his presence. Ultimately, the prosecution evidence was closed on 09.10.2017. 23. In the opinion of this Court, the writing on the fardbeyan being disputed by the defence, the non-appearance of PW-6 for his complete examination-in-chief and cross-examination has seriously prejudiced the defence. 24. On perusal of the records, this Court has noticed that PW-1 has stated that police remained for half an hour in his house but PW-2 has stated that police remained there till 10.00 PM and only after the police left, he left the place. In his endeavour to support the prosecution case, PW-2 has stated that his statement was recorded by police on the date of occurrence itself at 7.00 PM in front of house of PW-1 but in his cross-examination in paragraph ‘12’, he has stated that after the occurrence, he had gone near the house of PW-1 and stayed there for one hour and police arrived at 5.00 PM, 10 minutes thereafter he left the place. In paragraph ‘14’ of his deposition, he has stated that in his presence no statement of any witness was recorded, police was there till 10.00 PM and he left the place after the police departed. It is evident from the statement of PW-2 in various paragraphs that he is making self-contradictory statements regarding his presence and recording of his statement. The I.O. (PW-5) has stated in paragraph ‘15’ of his deposition that he had recorded the statement of the witness Vijay (PW-2) on 13.06.2008. This Court, therefore, finds that PW-2 has been making wrong and false statement regarding recording of his statement and the period for which he was present when the police arrived and recorded the fardbeyan, prepared the inquest report and dead body challan. 25. In his deposition, the I.O. Sona Prasad Singh (PW-5) has stated that PW-2 had not made statement before him that at the time of occurrence, he was at the door of his house. He had not stated that when he heard hulla then he saw that Ramdeo Mahto and his son Pradeep Mahto were coming fleeing away from the eastern side. He had not stated that when he heard hulla then he saw that Ramdeo Mahto and his son Pradeep Mahto were coming fleeing away from the eastern side. He had also not stated that behind Ramdeo and Pradeep, Lallu, Papul and Chintu were running armed with pistols. From all these materials on the record, to this Court it appears that the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved PW-2. 26. In this case as regards the evidence of Dilip Kumar (PW-3), the learned trial court has doubted the veracity of his statements. PW-3 is one of the sons of PW-1 who was not a charge-sheet witness but his signature has been found on the fardbeyan (Exhibit-5), the inquest report (Exhibit-X) and he also claims to have signed on the dead body challan. In his deposition, he has stated that he signed on the first and second paper on the same day in a gap of half an hour but he further says that he signed the third document next day at 8.00 AM. Here it is required to be noted that the fardbeyan is said to have been recorded on 12.06.2008 at 5.00 PM but on the top of the formal FIR where endorsement is made by the learned C.J.M./A.C.J.M. of the jurisdictional court, it appears that there is an interpolation in the date and some one has tried to do the overwriting. Surprisingly, the same position appears in the order-sheet of the learned Magistrate. The very first date on which the fardbeyan and the FIR were received in the court has been interpolated. On perusal of the entire records and on going through the findings of the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court has rightly arrived on a conclusion that the fardbeyan was not prepared on the date of the occurrence and it is ante-dated. 27. This Court has also noticed that in his deposition, PW-1 has stated that the occurrence was witnessed by his brother and wife of brother but in course of trial these witnesses were not produced. 27. This Court has also noticed that in his deposition, PW-1 has stated that the occurrence was witnessed by his brother and wife of brother but in course of trial these witnesses were not produced. Further PW-1 came with a story for the first time that he returned with Pradeep but when he reached in front of the street, he found that all the accused persons were chasing them, he has stated that Papul and Chintu fired upon both of them but the shots fired by them did not hit anyone, in the meantime, Lallu came near his son Pradeep and shot at him which hit in his left waist side and thereafter he fell down and died after being restless. In his cross- examination, this witness has stated that when he reached at the house of Pramod, he had seen several persons but he cannot say whether panchayati was taking place or not. There were about 25- 30 persons. He had gone to the house of Pramod when he was called but no one had gone to call his son, his son arrived there after five minutes of his reaching to the said place. He has stated that he had brought Pradeep pushing him from behind and during return he took 3-4 curves/turns. He has stated that when he both father and son returned home, there were 10-12 persons there from before including the lady members of the family, his brothers Arjun, Upendra and others. PW-1 has stated that when his son was shot at, he was 2-3 steps behind him, his son had fallen down and 2-4 minutes thereafter he had held his son but his son fell down. 28. From this part of the evidence of PW-1, it appears that he claims that he was pushing his son from behind and Papul and Chintu were firing but nobody suffered any bullet/pellet. It is to be remember that as per the prosecution case, the street was congested one and in that street if firings were made by Papul and Chintu, it is highly improbable that neither the informant nor his son who were fleeing through the street would not suffer any firearm injury. It is to be remember that as per the prosecution case, the street was congested one and in that street if firings were made by Papul and Chintu, it is highly improbable that neither the informant nor his son who were fleeing through the street would not suffer any firearm injury. The statement of the informant that when his son was shot at by Lallu, he was 2-3 steps behind him shows that his statement that he was pushing his son while bringing him back to the house is not believable because if Lallu came behind his son and fired at him, the informant (PW-1) who was already behind his son pushing him towards his house would have tried to save his son, contrary to this the informant has stated that he held his son 2- 4 minutes after his son had fallen down. This statement of PW-1 is to be considered keeping in mind his own statement that it took him 2-4 minutes in reaching to his house while returning with Pradeep (deceased) after taking 3-4 turns. It shows that the informant covered the distance from the house of Pramod to his own house within 2-4 minutes but same time was taken by him in holding his son after his son had suffered the fire arm injury and had fallen down. If PW-1 was only 2-3 steps ahead to his son or in other words his son was 2-3 steps behind the informant, it would not have taken 2-4 minutes for the informant in holding his son. 29. This Court finds that in course of his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that prior to the occurrence, the sister of accused Ashwani had suffered bullet in which a case was lodged and he was one of the accused. This witness has also stated in paragraph ‘28’ of his deposition that he knew the co-villagers Ashok Paswan, Righan Paswan, Jitendra, Ram Janam, Jogi and Kailash Paswan, they were his customers. PW-1 has stated that these people are veteran criminals of the village but they were not residing in the village for last 2-3 years. The defence has argued before the trial court that the deposition of the informant (PW-1) itself shows that he had prior enmity with the family of the accused persons and he was in contact with the veteran criminals of the village who were coming to his shop. 30. The defence has argued before the trial court that the deposition of the informant (PW-1) itself shows that he had prior enmity with the family of the accused persons and he was in contact with the veteran criminals of the village who were coming to his shop. 30. On the basis of these materials which we have discussed hereinabove, it appears that the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved PW-1 and PW-2 who have deposed as eye witnesses to the occurrence. 31. The learned trial court has examined the medical evidence adduced by the Dr. Niranjan Mishra (PW-4) who found the following injuries:- “External Injuries – 1” round penetrating wound cavity deep on left deltoid region lateral side internally leading to chest cavity breathing 2 nd rib on left side margin inverted and tattooing on face neck and chest. This was wound of entry of fire arms. Second injury echymosis of bluish back of left deltoid region posterially dimension 3” x ½ “ caused by M.B.S. Third injury incised wound on occipital region of the head dimension 2 ½ “ x ¼ “ soft tissue deep by sharp cutting weapon. On dissection:- In Head Region- skull was intact, Brain was pale, Neck was intact. In chest region- 2 nd Left rib strauma and third right rib fractured. Chest cavity contained blood and clot. Lungs upper left and right low torn and pale. Bullet like metallic structure located in uppr right chest and pressured. Heart- Both side empty and lacs. In abdominal region – Stomach contained undigested food Lever and other organ were pale except limbs were intact. Times since death – 24 to 36 hrs. cause death – Acute circulatory failure due to shock optrauma and internal hemorrhage cause by fire arms injuries. - Injury No. 1 was sufficient for cause of death of deceased. Injury No. 2 and 3 was possible of multiple fall and hard blunt substance.” 32. The learned trial court found that from the postmortem report (Exhibit ‘2’) it appears that the deceased had received bullet from the left side. He had received three injuries whereas the prosecution case is that he was shot at from behind at a distance of one hand but there was no charring or blackening wound. The witnesses have not stated about the third wound which was an incised wound of 2½” x ¼” on the occipital region of the head. He had received three injuries whereas the prosecution case is that he was shot at from behind at a distance of one hand but there was no charring or blackening wound. The witnesses have not stated about the third wound which was an incised wound of 2½” x ¼” on the occipital region of the head. The doctor has opined that it was caused by sharp edged weapon but there was no eye witness to say as to how this third injury was caused. In this manner, the learned trial court has found that the first injury was caused by bullet, the second injury was caused by a blunt weapon and third injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon but about the injury no.2 and injury no.3 the eye witnesses have not stated as to how the injuries were caused. 33. Looking to the postmortem report, the learned trial court has found from the evidence of the doctor that the death had taken place within 24 and 36 hours, therefore, the occurrence had taken place on 12.06.2008 in the morning around 10.30 am and not at 4.00 PM. This would also prove fatal to the prosecution case. The dead body was taken for postmortem by a constable, though the informant has stated that chowkidar Ashutosh Paswan had given information to the police station but no station diary entry in this regard has been brought on record and said chowkidar Ashutosh Paswan has not been examined. In ultimate analysis, the learned trial court held that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. 34. We have examined the entire evidence and discussed the findings of the learned trial court hereinabove. This Court is of the opinion that the findings of the learned trial court cannot be said to be perversed so as to interfere with the impugned judgment. 35. It is an appeal against acquittal and the principles governing such appeals have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the several judicial pronouncements. We quote paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment in case of H.D. Sundara vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 hereunder:- “8. 35. It is an appeal against acquittal and the principles governing such appeals have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the several judicial pronouncements. We quote paragraph ‘8’ of the judgment in case of H.D. Sundara vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 hereunder:- “8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment1 rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC 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 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.” 36. In result, we find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.