JUDGMENT : MAULIK J. SHELAT, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgement and order dated 4th December, 2003 passed by the 2nd Fast Track Judge, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2003. By way of the impugned judgement and order, the accused has been acquitted under Section-307 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) by the Trial Court. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as under: 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.05.2003, the parents of complainant-Madhaviben Rameshbhai Pandya, had gone to Dhari Kharkhare while her brother Mehul was at his shop and only her elder mother Kashiben and the complainant were present at home at that time, as her two other sisters had gone to their maternal uncle's house in Visavadar. 4. On the same day at about 10:30 in the morning, while the complainant was working in the courtyard and her elder mother Kashiben was inside the house, the accused Sanjay Laxmishankar alias Babubhai Joshi came and asked about the whereabouts of Vandana, who is the sister of complainant. When the complainant replied that Vandana had gone to their uncle's house and further informed that her parents had gone to Dhari, the accused suddenly locked the main door of the house. He then took out a sickle from his bag and inflicted two cuts on the complainant's neck - one on the left side and another on the right side, with the left side injury also affecting her ear. On hearing her screams, her elder mother came and opened the door while raising an alarm, following which neighbors including Vijayaben, Kailasben and Manjuben gathered and took the complainant to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw. Meanwhile, the accused hid himself in a room of the house which was subsequently locked from outside by neighbor Kailasben. The incident allegedly occurred because the accused was previously engaged to the complainant's sister Vandana, but such engagement was cancelled. 5. The complainant has lodged the complaint against the accused in Amreli City Police Station, registered Ist C.R. No.69/2003. Meanwhile, the accused hid himself in a room of the house which was subsequently locked from outside by neighbor Kailasben. The incident allegedly occurred because the accused was previously engaged to the complainant's sister Vandana, but such engagement was cancelled. 5. The complainant has lodged the complaint against the accused in Amreli City Police Station, registered Ist C.R. No.69/2003. After recording statement of the complainant and other witnesses and upon completion of investigation, the accused was arrested and charge-sheeted for the alleged offence committed by him under Section-307 of IPC. Later on, the case was committed to the Trial Court for conducting the trial as per provisions of Cr.P.C. and charge (Exh.2) was framed by the Trial Court. 6. To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence: Oral Evidences of Prosecution Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh. 1. Dr. Arshibhai Sidibhai Vadher 8 2. Janakbhai Maganbhai 15 3. Bharatbhai Shivshankar 17 4. Rajeshbhai Gordhanbhai 19 5. Kalubhai Vallabhbhai 20 6. Nileshkumar Laxmishankar 22 7. Madhviben Rameshbhai 27 8. Kailashben Kishorbhai 29 9. Khodabhai Laxmanbhai 30 10. Osmanbhai Rahematkhan 31 11. Atulkumar Bhanushankar Bhatt 35 12. Mansukhlal Nanalal Pargi 38 13. Narshibhai Govindbhai Vaghasiya 40 14. Dr. Mukund Motibhai Prabhakar 47 Documentary Evidences of Prosecution Sr. No. Name and Particulars Exh. 1. Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Amreli, after examining Madhviben Rameshbhai 1 2. OPD case paper 10 to 11 3. Letter issued by the Medical Officer to the PI, Amreli City 12 4. Letter issued by the P.I., Amreli City to the Medical Officer, Amreli 13 5. Certificate given by the Medical Officer, Amreli after examining the accused 14 6. Panchnama of Scene of Offence 16 7. Panchnama regarding the clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident, which were seized for examination 18 8. Panchnama regarding seizure of Hero Honda Motor Cycle 21 9. Panchnama regarding seizure of the skirt worn by the complainant at the time of the incident 23 10. Complaint 28 11 Panchnama of Arrest of the Accused 32 12. Letter for DD 36 13 Dying Declaration (DD) 37 14. Order for investigation 39 15 Report submitted by the PI, Amreli City to the PSO, Amreli City 41 16 Report prepared by the ISL officer Amreli after inspecting the crime scene 42 17 Acknowledgement of receipt of seized muddamal for FSL 43 18. Letter for DD 36 13 Dying Declaration (DD) 37 14. Order for investigation 39 15 Report submitted by the PI, Amreli City to the PSO, Amreli City 41 16 Report prepared by the ISL officer Amreli after inspecting the crime scene 42 17 Acknowledgement of receipt of seized muddamal for FSL 43 18. Analysis Report 44 19. Original Transfer Form 48 20 28 pages of case papers 49 21. Injury certificate of Madhviben 50 22. X-ray of Madhviben 51 23 Referral letter from Dhruv Plastic Surgical Hospital, Rajkot 52 7. After appreciating the evidence made available on record, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused from the charge under Section-307 of the IPC levelled against him. 8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order passed by the Trial Court, the prosecution has filed the present Criminal Appeal. 9. We have heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mr.Ronak Rawal for the State and learned Advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya for the respondent at length. 10. Learned APP Mr. Rawal has taken me through various oral as well as documentary evidence, which are on record of the case. I have also independently examined and re-appreciated evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution. The learned APP would submit that the Trial Court has committed serious error of law by convicting the accused only for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC, that too by awarding simple imprisonment of 6 months, inasmuch as the accused was charged with serious offence committed by him under Section 307 of the IPC. The learned APP would further submit that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the injury sustained by victim Madhaviben, was grave in nature and could have caused her death. The learned APP would further submit that as per the medical evidence available on record, more particularly the evidence of Dr. Mukund Motibhai Prabhakar (PW-14), who was a Director in the Civil Hospital and happens to be M.S. Ortho. Surgeon, he clearly deposed that the injury sustained by the victim was enough to cause her death. It is submitted that once such medical evidence is available on record, no presumption could have been drawn adverse to such medical evidence. Mukund Motibhai Prabhakar (PW-14), who was a Director in the Civil Hospital and happens to be M.S. Ortho. Surgeon, he clearly deposed that the injury sustained by the victim was enough to cause her death. It is submitted that once such medical evidence is available on record, no presumption could have been drawn adverse to such medical evidence. The learned APP would further submit that the motive and intention of the accused was very clear to inflict injury upon the sister of the victim when he left his home, but when he did not find her at home, he quarrelled with the victim and with blow of sickle on her neck, caused serious injury, whereby she became paralysed. It is submitted that in light of the evidence available on record, the Trial Court is required to hold the accused guilty for committing the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and as such, is required to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for the maximum period prescribed under law. Accordingly, the learned APP would request this Court to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. Gondaliya appearing for the accused would submit that there is no gross error of law committed by the Trial Court while not holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC, for which he was charged, inasmuch as ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC is not satisfactorily proved beyond doubt by the prosecution. Learned Advocate Mr. Gondaliya would submit that as per the case of the prosecution and so also the oral evidence of the victim-Madhaviben Rameshbhai (PW-7), it would suggest that when the accused entered the house of the victim, he first inquired about the whereabouts of her sister, namely Vandana, with whom he was engaged but such engagement was cancelled and having found that she was not at home, there was some quarrel which took place between the accused and the victim which resulted into injury on the body of the victim. It is submitted that to prove the charges under Section 307 of the IPC, heavy burden was upon the prosecution to discharge that there was an intention or knowledge with the accused while committing any act which causes death. But considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, such burden was not satisfactorily discharged by the prosecution. Learned Advocate Mr. But considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, such burden was not satisfactorily discharged by the prosecution. Learned Advocate Mr. Gondaliya would further submit that as per the evidence of the treating doctor, namely Dr. Arshibhai Sidibhai Vadher (PW-1), the injury sustained by victim Madhaviben, was simple in nature and there would not be any chance of any complication. It is submitted that there are two medical opinions available on record having stating different states of outcome of the injuries sustained by the victim, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and as such, the Trial Court has correctly given benefit of doubt to the accused by not convicting him under Section 307 of the IPC. Learned Advocate Mr. Gondaliya would further submit that the sentence awarded to the accused is just and reasonable inasmuch as at the time of trial, he was very young, having the responsibility of his family to maintain and as such, the complainant was called upon by the Trial Court in relation to inflicting the sentence, wherein the victim has agreed that by granting compensation, lesser punishment may be awarded to the accused. So, the Trial Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- in favour of the victim, which was already deposited by the accused, thereby, the accused may not be burdened with more amount of compensation and/or by increasing the punishment further, as he has already undergone 6 months' simple imprisonment as awarded by the Trial Court. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr.Gondaliya would request this Court to dismiss the present appeal. 12. Before adverting to the issue germane in the appeal, at the end of hearing, we have inquired about the current position/status of victim, namely Madhaviben, to which the learned APP, through the help of local police (Amreli City Police Station), got the information about the current status of victim Madhaviben. The copies of the statement of the brother of the victim, namely Mehulbhai and mother Praveenaben, were tendered to this Court for its perusal and so also her Disability Certificate. One gathers from such information that despite the injury sustained by the victim, having resulted into 50% disability, she got married and also got employment as a teacher in a primary government school, currently working at District Devbhumi Dwarka. Thus, it appears that the victim has already settled down in her life. 13. One gathers from such information that despite the injury sustained by the victim, having resulted into 50% disability, she got married and also got employment as a teacher in a primary government school, currently working at District Devbhumi Dwarka. Thus, it appears that the victim has already settled down in her life. 13. Before dealing with merits of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law propounded by the Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding the present appeal. 14. One of the recent pronouncements, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka [ (2024) 8 SCC 149 ] , has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgements and held as below: - "29. After referring to a catena of judgements, 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 ] "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. 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 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 re- appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 41. 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 judgement 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 judgement of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material 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. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgement of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgement of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court.” (emphasis supplied) 15. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, first, it is required to be considered as to whether is there any serious error of law and facts committed by the Trial Court while not convicting the accused under Section-307 of the IPC for which he was charged ? 16. After scanning the entire evidence on record and so also after its re-appreciation, as well as after appreciating the submissions of learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties, the following facts emerge from the record. (i). The Trial Court has observed that the prosecution has not able to prove that there was an intention of the accused to cause injury to the victim which could cause death. This can be inferred from the oral evidence of the victim herself, inasmuch as in her deposition, she deposed that when the accused arrived at her home, he first inquired about her sister with whom he was engaged and having not found her at home, thereafter, quarrel started between the victim and the accused which ultimately resulted into injuries sustained by her. Further, the accused has also received injuries on his hand, which has also come on record. Further, the accused has also received injuries on his hand, which has also come on record. The suggestions which were put forward by the accused to the victim in her cross-examination would indicate that there was a scufÒe between the victim and the accused, thereby cause injuries to the victim, albeit such fact was denied by the victim. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the prosecution has failed to establish on record beyond doubt that with intention or with knowledge, the accused committed crime which caused injury to the victim which could have caused the death of the victim. (ii). As such, after re-appreciation of evidence on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has not successfully discharged the initial burden to satisfy the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC. The view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view and in any case, cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse or contrary to any basic principle of law. (iii). It has also come on record that the treating doctor examined by the prosecution i.e. Dr. Arshibhai Sidibhai Vadher (PW-1), in his oral evidence, deposed that the injury sustained by the victim was simple in nature and no complications could have occurred due to such injury. It is true that another medical officer, namely Dr. Mukund Motibhai Prabhakar (PW-14), examined by the prosecution, who appears to be senior doctor, opined otherwise. Nonetheless, the fact remains that there are two sets of medical evidence came on record. As per the settled legal position of law, when there are two views possible, the view which favours the accused is required to be adopted. (iv). The Trial Court has, after overall appreciation of the evidence on record, come to the conclusion that the accused has not inflicted the injuries on the body of the victim with an intention and knowledge to cause such serious injuries, but due to the aforesaid events, such injury was sustained by her, thereby not found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. According to us, such a view of the Trial Court cannot be said to be improbable and implausible, which requires any interference by this Court while exercising its appellate power in an acquittal appeal filed by the State. (v). According to us, such a view of the Trial Court cannot be said to be improbable and implausible, which requires any interference by this Court while exercising its appellate power in an acquittal appeal filed by the State. (v). Lastly, it is also now revealed that the victim has settled down in her life and as such, at the time of awarding the sentence she was also heard, wherein she has herself submitted to the Trial Court that by awarding compensation, a lesser punishment be awarded to the accused, which was accepted by the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, we would not like to disturb the sentence which has been awarded, having already been undergone by the accused and so also considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we are not inclined to even enhance the compensation. 17. Having appreciated all these aspects of the case and after going through evidence and its re-appreciation, reasons assigned by learned Trial Court are found to be just and proper. According to us, the prosecution has failed to prove its case before Trial Court, and as such, we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting the accused. 18. Considering this set of evidence on record and in light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the Second Fast Track Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.40 of 2003 while acquitting the respondent. 19. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED . Resultantly, the impugned judgement and order of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.