JUDGMENT
1. Appellant State has filed this appeal against the impugned of judgment of acquittal dated 21-11-1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in S.T. No. 61/89, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Balram, Hariram, Ram Kumar, Gyandas and Shriram, were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Police Kurai, District Seoni charge-sheeted respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Balram, Hariram, Ram Kumar, Gyandas and Shriram, for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC, on the accusation of having attempted at the life of complainant Saligram, in the night of 16-4-89.
3. The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication to the charges framed by the Trial Court under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC.
4. At the trial, the above charges were sought to be proved against the accused persons on the evidence of P.W. 1 Saligram, P.W. 2 Komal Singh s/o Jai Singh, P.W. 3 Komal Singh s/o Saligram, P.W. 4 Churaman Tiwari, P.W. 5 Narbada Prasad, P.W. 6 Nayeem Khan, P.W. 7 Kader Khan, P.W. 8 Shriram, P.W. 9 S.C. Jain, P.W. 10 Arvind Samadhiya and P.W. 11 Dr. S.L. Multani.
5. The Trial Court on the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial though found it proved that injured Saligram sustained injuries in the night of 16-4-89, but in view of the serious infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon their evidence and, therefore, recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondents accused persons of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC.
6. Shri Patel, the learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently argued that the Trial Court has erred in discarding the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on flimsy and untenable grounds.
7. Of the 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution at the trial P.W. 1 Saligram, P.W. 2 Komal Singh s/o Jai Singh and P.W. 3 Komal Singh s/o Saligram were examined as eye-witnesses of the alleged incident of assault on Saligram.
8. P.W. 3 Komal Singh, son of injured Saligram, categorically stated in Para 6 of his statement, that in the night of the incident itself the matter was reported to the police through some Circle Inspector. For the reasons best known to the prosecution neither the said earliest report was produced before the Trial Court, nor the said Circle Inspector was examined as a witness.
9. The other eye-witnesses P.W. 2 Komal Singh, son of Jai Singh, admittedly was examined by the police for the first time on 8-6-89, i.e., after about 1-1/2 month of the incident.
10. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General; the findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents accused persons; and, the evidence led by the prosecution at the trial, in general, and that of P.W. 1 Saligram, P.W. 2 Komal Singh s/o Jai Singh and P.W. 3 Komal Singh s/o Saligram, in particular, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. The infirmities pointed out by the Trial Court in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are borne out from the record. The learned State Counsel could not point out any such piece of legal evidence which was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court, while recording the impugned judgment of acquittal. The findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents are based on appreciation of the evidence on record. Mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not, by itself, be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in an appeal against acquittal. We, therefore, do not find any scope for interference.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/State, against the acquittal of the respondents, fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Balram, Hariram, Ram Kumar, Gyandas and Shriram are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.