JUDGMENT
N.V. Dabholkar, J.
1. The State is aggrieved by judgment and order rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 28.2.1992, in Sessions Case No. 349 of 1990. At the conclusion of the trial, present respondents, who were the three accused before the court and who were tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, were held not guilty and acquitted of the charges.
2. The prosecution story can be summed up as follows;
Victim Machindra was the son of complainant Murlidhar (PW-7). It appears that there had been some bickerings between brother of accused No. 3 Vaibhav (henceforth “A-3” for brevity’s sake). (It is not clear from the narration of the prosecution story, whether it was A-2 Shriram or any other brother of A-3) and Machindra (victim), few days prior to incident, which was the day of immersion of Ganesh Idols at the conclusion of Ganesh festival. It seems to be the story of prosecution that Vaibhav was aggrieved, because Machindra had beaten his brother. A-2 and A-3 before the court are the sons of A-1. Accused are residents of village Pimpalgaon (Kongira) and their house is close by the society office. The complainant and his family has two houses, because he has property at two different places, one at Kokanewadi and another at Dhandarphal.
The incident in question is said to have taken place on 6.9.1990. The prosecution has brought its story on record through depositions of as many as five witnesses, who claim to be eye witnesses of the incident. They are; complainant Murlidhar (PW-7), Gopala Kokane (PW-3) who claims to have intervened the fight between A-3 and the victim, Rajubai (PW-4) who was present in the school adjacent to the place of occurrence, Sakharam (PW-6) who witnessed the incident while he was taking his grand daughter to the school and Dagadu (PW-2) who was attending religious discourse in a temple, also by the side of the location.
The crux of the prosecution story is that, victim Machindra arrived at the location in front of a society office, by a jeep; accompanied by 4-5 others. He was accosted and challenged by A-3 Vaibhav as to why he (Machindra) beat his brother on Ganesh immersion day. Thereafter A-3 Vaibhav is said to have taken out a knife from his pocket and dealt blows on the person of Machindra, as a result of which, he collapsed. In a jeep, he was taken to Sangamner hospital, where he expired. (We have not narrated minor details of the crux of the prosecution story, because those have come in a varied manner from these eye witnesses and which was and is the main ground of attack by the defence.). What is the defence of the accused is required to be narrated here itself, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. A-1 claimed this to be a false complaint. A-2 Shriram pleaded that he was not present at the location when the incident took place. A-3 Vaibhav has come out with a positive story. According to him, he was assaulted by deceased Machindra, PW-3 Gopala, Madhukar, Bajirao and Shankar. Machindra inflicted knife blows upon him and others used sticks as weapon. Apprehending danger to his life, A-3 managed to snatch the knife and waged a counter-attack on Machindra, in order to save his life.
3. It appears that both the parties lodged complaints against each other. Present Sessions Case and Appeal are culmination of CR No. 169 of 1990 registered with Sangamner Taluka Police Station, whereas complaint filed by Vaibhav against deceased and others was registered as CR No. 170 of 1990. The first one (Exh.51) appears to have been registered at 12.00 hours and the second one (Exh.54) at 12.15 hours.
We cannot avoid feeling that when both the parties have filed prosecutions about the same incident, the Sessions Cases arising out of both the matters ought to have been conducted and decided simultaneously. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been done. We are informed by Advocate Shri Kute, upon instructions; that other Sessions Case was tried separately and it has ended in an acquittal. The Respondents, who are aggrieved party in that case, are unaware whether the State has preferred any appeal against the said acquittal.
So far as present case is concerned, prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses and this strength is loaded with five eye witnesses, already referred in earlier paragraph. Amongst remaining five witnesses, PW-1 Narendra is Medical Officer, who carried out post mortem of deceased Machindra, as also clinical examination of A-3 Vaibhav and witnesses Gopala and Murlidhar. He has issued and proved before the court, post mortem notes and injury certificates of all three persons. PW-5 Madhav Kokane is a panch witness. Knife is said to have been discovered by A-1 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-8 Sakharam Kokane is the spot panch and remaining two are police officers, each of whom has carried out some part of investigation. They are PW-9 ASI Gopal Joshi and PW-10 PSI Sopan Borse, who were then attached to Sangamner Police Station.
4. Heard respective counsel. Learned APP Smt. Reddi having uphill task to persuade us against the view taken by trial court, has taken us through entire evidence of all five eye witnesses, as also whole the judgment. According to learned APP, the cross complaints indicate that occurrence of incident cannot be denied; the spot panchanama fixes the location; Gopala and Murlidhar have suffered injuries, is a guarantee that they are genuine eye witnesses. According to her, variances and discrepancies in the narrations of the witnesses, is not sufficient to disbelieve them. On the contrary, that is an indication that they are not giving stereotype version to the court. The variances are within the limits of capacity of the witnesses to observe, store and reproduce. According to learned APP, the trial court was at an error in disbelieving as many as five eye witnesses and even if PW-3 Gopala is believed, the guilt would stand proved. She urged for setting aside the finding recorded by the trial court and substitution of finding of guilty against the respondents-accused.
Shri R.L.Kute, learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused, has supported the view taken by the trial court. According to him, the prosecution has partly failed and partly refused to explain the injuries upon the person of A-3 and, therefore, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar , inference must be drawn that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence ; that the witnesses are lying on most material points and that the version of the defence, which explains the injuries; is rendered probable. In order to meet possible argument from learned A.P.P. that A-3 Vaibhav exceeded the right of private defence, reliance is placed upon observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Narayan Singh v. State of Haryana 2008 AIR SCW 2641 and more particularly observations in paragraph 12, which are borrowed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from its earlier judicial pronouncement in the matter of Butta Singh v. The State of Punjab .
According to learned Counsel Shri Kute, in any case, all the witnesses have sufficiently discredited themselves and, therefore, the prosecution story must be said to have not advanced an inch forward in proving the guilt. He has, therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.
5. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, we must remind ourselves regarding scope of the appeal and we stand guided by observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment in the matter of Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. , which are to following effect;
It is now well settled that the power of the High Court in an appeal from acquittal is no different from its power in an appeal from conviction. It can review and consider the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions by either accepting the evidence rejected by the trial court or rejecting the evidence accepted by the trial court. However, if the High Court decided to depart from the conclusions reached by the trial court, it should pay due attention to the grounds on which acquittal was based and state the reasons as to why it finds the conclusion leading to the acquittal, unacceptable. It should also bear in mind that (i) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by the findings of the trial court; (ii) the accused is entitled to benefit of any doubt; and (iii) the trial court had the advantage of examining the demeanour of the witnesses. The crux of the matter, however, is whether the High Court is able to give clear reasons to dispel the doubt raised, and reject the reasons given by the trial court.
In the matter of State of U.P. v. Jai Prakash (2007) 10 SCC 164, the Supreme Court, in paragraph 9, has observed thus; “. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.” In the matter of Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan , it is observed as follows;
Law is well settled. While caution is the watchword, in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived at; the provision does not inhibit (sic) any restriction or limitation. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless.
6. Learned A.P.P. has taken us through entire impugned judgment and the observations/reasons recorded by the learned trial court for which it arrived at a finding of `not guilty’ can be summed up as under; For elaborate and separate reasons recorded for appreciating evidence of each and every eye witness, the learned trial judge found the evidence of all five eye witnesses, including the complainant, to be unreliable. It is also held that explanation tried to be offered by the prosecution for the injuries upon the person of A-3 Vaibhav is not acceptable and plausible. The prosecution has not tried to explain three out of the four injuries on the person of accused Vaibhav. Hence, it is held that the version offered by the defence is possible. Learned Sessions Judge has gone to the extent of observing that right of self defence was available to accused Vaibhav.
While considering sustainability or otherwise of the impugned judgment, we intend to go on the same line as the learned trial judge. We intend to examine whether, disbelief expressed by the trial court about each and every witness, is justified. Needless to say that we may give cryptic reasons where-ever we concur with the learned judge. We are obliged to record elaborate reasons where we disagree and over rule the observations of the trial court. For the purpose of ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of factual observations and the conclusions drawn by the learned judge, while learned APP was arguing the matter; we have read evidence of witness and then comments of the learned Judge, about his reliability. It was in this fashion, that the evidence of five eye witnesses and judgment were read second time.
7. So far as complainant Murlidhar (PW-7) is concerned, following are the main reasons recorded by the trial court for finding him, a witness unworthy of credit. (i). He presented a totally different story in his deposition, as compared to his complaint. (He had lodged the FIR). (ii). His unnatural conduct of not accompanying the victim in the jeep to the hospital, creates doubt about his presence (witness claimed to have walked upto the bust stop, picked up a bus to Sangamner and then reached the hospital). (12) (iii). He could not identify accused Nos. 2 and 3, from the witness box. Having gone through the comments recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment, we do not find any error in factual observations. We also do not find that the view taken by the learned judge is extreme view. We may only add couple of comments. Murlidhar has narrated his age from the witness box, to be 92 years. Trial seems to have proceeded couple of years after the incident. Hence, Murlidhar was 90 years old on the day of the incident. We have our own doubts whether the man of this age, even if present; would dare to interfere in the physical violence or would leave younger generation to fight out the issue, if at all they had indulged into the violence. We are unable to believe that Murlidhar interfered when there was scuffle between Machindra on one side and accused Nos. 1 and 3 on the other. It is the claim of Murlidhar that he dealt a stick blow on the head of Vijay. Eventually, there is no medical evidence of accused No. 1 Vijay having suffered head injury. The investigation may not collect the injury certificate of Vijay, for the purpose of this case but, if Vijay was really injured, present accused persons would make a capital of it in the counter case and it was for the prosecution to collect the medical evidence from the counter case and demonstrate that the claim of Machindra is justified. Murlidhar has admitted during his cross examination that, for going to village Dhandarphal from his village (Kokanewadi), one need not go to Pimpalgaon (Konjira). It is the contention of Murlidhar that he started from his residence for Dhandarphal. If there is a shorter route directly to Dhandarphal, Murlidhar could not have been present at the place of occurrence. Although he narrated in the chief-examination that Vaibhav dealt a knife blow to the victim, he did not describe location on the body of the victim as to where the blow landed. That A-2 caught legs of the victim, is an improvement over the FIR. Even the story that was tried to be propounded by Gopala for the first time in order to explain injury on the person of Vijay, was half heartedly borrowed by Murlidhar at the cost of improvement over the FIR. He has narrated that Machindra kicked Vaibhav, but he has not continued the story that Vaibhav fell on the wall and in the process, knife penetrated his chest. It can be said in lighter way that, Murlidhar did not do his homework properly. We must refer to evidence of Gopala Kokane (PW-3) and he must be termed as “star witness””star witness””star witness” of the prosecution. His presence at the location is confirmed by the fact that he is impleaded as accused and he has suffered injuries during the incident, according to his narration; while trying to snatch the knife from accused Vaibhav. The trial judge has dealt with evidence of Gopala in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the judgment. Although learned judge compared version of Gopala with the FIR lodged by Murlidhar, we feel that this was an erroneous way to impeach veracity of the witness. Witness can be contradicted only with his earlier statement. Witness may present different version than that of another witness, about the same incident, because of difference in the observation capacity, location from and situation in which the two witnesses observe the incident and, therefore, variance between narration of two witnesses does not necessarily falsify both. We have, therefore, ignored number of contradictions recorded by learned Judge as between the deposition of Gopala and FIR by Murlidhar and to some extent; the variance between depositions of Gopala and Murlidhar. Yet, the trial judge can be said to be justified in finding Gopala to be a witness, unsafe to rely upon. The reasons recorded by the trial court can be summed up as under;
(i). Improbability of the story made out by him to explain the injury on the person of Vaibhav.
(ii). Three improvements, although minor but crucial, over and above his police statement;
(a). participation of A-2 Shriram.
(b). manner of scuffle between accused Vaibhav and the deceased. (c). description of the weapon.
(iii). He is prosecuted as an accused in the case filed by Vaibhav.
(iv). His statement was recorded after ten days. (In fact, he was the person accompanying the victim throughout. He had accompanied the victim to the hospital and also met police personnel at the hospital, as well as location during the course of the day. We must say that he is the person, who ought to have filed FIR but the FIR seems to have been filed by a person, whose presence at the location is doubtful and the person at the location seems to have taken his own time before making disclosure to the police.
So far as three minor improvements are concerned, we may only reproduce the relevant portion of cross examination of Investigating Officer PSI Shri Borse (PW-10), who states in paragraph 5 as follows;
I recorded the statement of Gopala Raghunath Kokne. He did not state before me that Machindra and Vaibhav started pushing each other and they went in Varandah of society office at the door of fair price shop and Shriram came there running and he caught hold his legs. He also did not state that the handle of knife was yellow and length was 1“` including blade.
We may support finding of the trial judge, by adding few more reasons. It was the claim of Gopala that accused Vijay came from the temple side and slapped Machindra. In the cross examination, Gopala states, “Machindra did not get annoyed even “Machindra did not get annoyed even “Machindra did not get annoyed even after Vijay slapped.” Vijay slapped.” Vijay slapped.” The unnatural conduct, attributed to deceased by Gopala, confirms that he is a faithful friend of the victim. Story narrated by Gopala, in order to explain injuries on the person of Vaibhav, is another example that he is trying to support the prosecution, even by improbable story. Gopala has tried to explain an injury on the person of Vaibhav thus;
Machindra kicked Vaibhav, Vaibhav fell down on the wall of Varandah, Vaibhav shouted loudly, “Memo Melo”. The knife was (had) entered in the chest of Vaibhav as he had fallen down on the wall of Varandah.
Gopala has not described the location on the body of Vaibhav, where the kick of Machindra had landed, but, other witnesses have described the same as abdomen. In any case, if Vaibhav was trying to assault Machindra by knife, they were face to face and it will have to be presumed that the victim must have kicked Vaibhav, either in the chest or on abdomen and in any case, front side of the body. Naturally, Vaibhav would fall on the back. If at all Vaibhav was holding knife in his hand, this situation does not permit us to swallow the story that, knife penetrated in the chest of Vaibhav as a result of this fall. For the purpose, blade of the knife will be required to be facing the chest, the impact with the wall or ground must be with the chest of the victim and the weapon being between the wall/ground and the chest and yet pointing towards chest. In any case, if the impact was in such a fashion, the injury could have been fatal and a man falling with whole body weight on weapon, must suffer much deeper injury. It is the claim of Gopala that he tried to snatch the knife and in the process, he suffered injuries. Impliedly, it is the case of Gopala that he caught the blade of the knife and tried to snatch it away from Vaibhav. On this count, we need to refer to medical evidence. PW-1 Dr. Narendra had clinically examined Gopala, on the same day and injuries noticed on his person are described as under;
(i). incised wound right middle finger 3/4″ x 1/4″, destal phalanx palmer aspect.
(ii). Incised wound left index finger 1/4″ x1/4″.
Even if we presume the knife to be a weapon with sharp edge only on one side, the person trying to catch blade would suffer incision to all four fingers and if the weapon is double edged, he would also suffer incision to other part of the palm. That, Gopala has incised injuries to one finger only of each palm, falsifies story that he had grabbed blade and tried to snatch the knife from Vaibhav.
Gopala had supported the version of the complainant that the complainant dealt a stick blow on the head of Vijay and Gopala stands falsified on this count, for the same reasons as discussed while holding that Murlidhar is falsified in his narration to such an effect.
We cannot avoid feeling that what story Gopala is narrating, the main story; is improbable. If we take into consideration the sequence of events as narrated by Gopala, there is verbal confrontation by Vaibhav in the open space in front of society, then a slap dealt by accused Vijay, in the scuffle of three, Machindra is pushed to the entrance door of fair price shop on the ground floor of the society building (admittedly, Gopala did not intervene at this stage, which is most unnatural when he was accompanied by Machindra and was observing assault on Machindra by two assailants i.e. A-1 and A-3). At the entrance, the victim is grabbed by A-1 and A-2 and dealt with knife blows by A-3. Thereafter A-3 is kicked away by victim, victim is pushed in a corner of Varandah by A-1 and A-2. Accused No. 3, who has suffered penetration of knife in the chest, thereafter tried to inflict the remaining injuries on the victim. Although the story may be possible in case of exceptionally violent people, in the ordinary course of human conduct, this appears to be improbable. Last but not the least, admissions of Gopala are sufficient to demonstrate that although present complaint is registered first in time by the police station, in fact, it is not so. Gopala admits;
Police met me in the hospital at about 11 to 11.30 a.m. and took us to the police station. Police station is about 400-500 feet from the hospital. It is true that one P.S.I. had taken me. Bajirao, Madhukarrao, Shankar, Shivram Shivaji (only first names quoted) and others in the police station in between 9.15 to 11.30 a.m. in City police station. I came to know about the complaint of Vaibhav at about 11.30 a.m. when we were arrested.
Admittedly, his statement was recorded at about 8.30 p.m. Above admission clearly indicates that till then, Gopala had not thought of lodging FIR, although he was aware that his friend was at the door steps of the death, as a result of injuries inflicted upon him.
8. PW-4 Rajubai is related to both parties. She is niece of A-1 and sister-in-law of the victim. The trial court found her presence to be doubtful, because she is not named in the FIR, her reaction was passive, as she did not bother to go close to victim Machindra. In fact, we find that her narration to the effect that “Murlidhar and Gopala”Murlidhar and Gopala”Murlidhar and Gopala came running when scuffle between Vaibhav and running when scuffle between Vaibhav and running when scuffle between Vaibhav and deceased started” started” started” is sufficient to indicate that she knows nothing of the incident. According to Gopala, he was throughout by the side of the victim and he cannot be described to have approached after sometime since the scuffle started. About Murlidhar, if we compare his complaint and deposition, those are in conflict whether complainant was first at the location or the victim had reached before him. We find no reasons to disbelieve the doubts expressed by the trial court about presence of PW-4 Rajubai, at the location.
9. PW-2 Dagdu and PW-6 Sakharam stand on the same footing, to some extent. The statements of both these witnesses were recorded by police after four days i.e. on 10.9.1990. Out of the two, PW-2 was in the employment of police department and he was aware that a cognizable offence should be reported to the police, as early as possible and Sakharam has admitted in his cross examination that he was being insisted by the complainant and Gopala that he should make a statement to police and he gave a statement as instructed by Gopala and complainant. In the deposition of Dagadu, initial dialogue between Vaibhav and victim, so also story that accused Vijay grabbed hands of victim so that Vaibhav could inflict blows freely, are improvements over his police statement. Shankar, brother of Dagadu, is impleaded as accused in the cross complaint.
In fact, Dagadu was subjected to quite a lengthy cross examination, in order to demonstrate that location was such that ample number of independent witnesses could have been available. Cross examination in that direction was justified in 1992. However, now even the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken a cognizance of apathy of independent witnesses to come forward and enter the witness box.
We, therefore, would not be using absence of independent witnesses, as reason for disbelieving these witnesses. But, the fact remains that the witnesses are either relatives of the victim or they have an axe to grind, by being accused persons in the cross complaint.
We have discussed, in brief hereinabove, the reasons recorded by the learned trial judge for disbelieving the witnesses and we find ourselves to be in agreement, also for the additional reasons recorded by us.
10. In fact, when it is a matter of cross complaints, it is desirable that both are heard simultaneously and that compels the court to decide as to which party was aggressive party and thus which party is not entitled to right of self defence of person. Eventually, we cannot turn back the clock. Matters are heard separately and we are unaware of any appeal against acquittal in other case, being filed by the State. The trial judge not only arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution side is suppressing the genesis and the origin of the occurrence, but he also felt that the right of self defence had accrued in favour of A-3 Vaibhav. When we questioned the learned Counsel for the Respondents-accused about possibility of A-3 having exceeded right of self defence, he has drawn our attention to the admission by the Investigating Officer during his cross examination and pleaded that this admission is a clinching piece of evidence, demonstrating that the prosecution side had come prepared to create violence. PW-10 Sopan Borse, PSI and Investigating Officer, admits;
I seized jeep and sticks kept in the jeep in the offence C.R. No. 170/90.
Present prosecution side taking its own time and being later in filing the complaint, is obvious from the discussion hereinabove pertaining to assessment of credibility of complainant Murlidhar and star witness Gopala.
Shri Kute, learned Advocate for the Respondents, has placed reliance upon observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Narayan Singh v. State of Haryana 2008 AIR SCW 2641. Observations from earlier judicial pronouncement in Butta Sing v. State of Punjab which are borrowed in paragraph 12, read thus;
A person who is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private-defence commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. Such situations have to be pragmatically viewed and not with high-powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hyper technical approach has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount consideration.
A caution is also sounded that when in the guise of self-preservation, in fact it is an assault by the aggressor, the plea of right of private defence can ultimately be negatived. We have pin-pointedly asked learned Counsel for the defence as to why right of private defence cannot be termed as extinguished, as soon as the knife was snatched by A-3 from Machindra. Learned Counsel has submitted that according to the defence, it was not Machindra alone, but his 5-6 companions also were armed with sticks. They cannot be presumed to withdraw as soon as knife was snatched. Therefore, it was a fact-situation wherein A-3 cannot be expected to be circumspect about use of force in self-defence to be measured in fine scales.
In view of the fact that, the victim was not alone, but even as per the narration of Gopala, at least 5-6 persons had arrived in a jeep,, which was loaded with sticks, the view expressed by learned defence counsel is required to be upheld as a possible view.
11. In the matter of Lakshmi Singh (supra), some observations from the judgment in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima , are borrowed in paragraph 12, whereafter the Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines. The observations borrowed read;
In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts of each case, any of the three results may follow;
(1). That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self defence.
(2). It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(3). It does not affect the prosecution case at all.
In the matter at hands, the result at serial No. 1 can be considered as possible. The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines as under;
It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences;
(1). That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;
(2). that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3). that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.
Applying the test to the matter at hands and upon assessment of five eye witnesses as done hereinabove, we are of a considered view that probably, a totally different story to suit the purpose of conviction of the accused persons, and not the actual occurrence, is presented before the court and hence, the trial court was fully justified in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubts.
12. Finding of not guilty and judgment of acquittal, therefore, calls for no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. All accused are present. They are discharged and their bail bonds stand cancelled.