JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’), against the judgment of acquittal dated 20.08.2019, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the First Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2017, titled as Bhagirath & Another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, which was filed by the respondents, against the judgment of conviction, dated 15.12.2017 and order of sentence, dated 16.12.2017, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), in Police Challan No.231-I-2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Bhagi Rath & Others. 2. Vide judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2017, the learned trial Court has acquitted accused Anju Devi and Geeta Devi, and convicted accused Bhagi Rath for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323 and 325 IPC , read with Section 34 and accused Gadku Ram, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with , and sentenced them, as under:- Bhagi Rath Sections Imprisonment 341 IPC Simple imprisonment for one month 323 & 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year for each of the offences Gadku Ram Sections Imprisonment 323 & 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC Simple imprisonment for one year for each of the offences 3. Learned trial Court has also directed that all the sentences of imprisonment of both the accused shall run concurrently. 4. Aggrieved from the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, accused/convicts Bhagi Rath and Godku have preferred the appeal, under Section 374 Cr.P.C., before the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.08.2019, has allowed the appeal and acquitted accused Bhagi Rath, for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 325 IPC read with Section 34 of the and accused Godku, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with of the . 5. Against the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal, before this Court. 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 7. 5. Against the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal, before this Court. 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were referred to, by the learned trial Court. 7. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:- 7.1. The Police of Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur, has submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, on the allegations that on 12.06.2014, when ASI Vinod Kumar, Incharge PAR Bhota, in connection with Rapat No.12, along with other police official, was present on the spot, then, Braham Dass, complainant, made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC, disclosing therein, that he is working in GSSS Dangar as Laboratory Assistant. His uncle Gadku Ram has started construction of house adjacent to his house for the last 7-8 days. He has also raised pillar on the passage. 7.2. According to the complainant, on 12.06.2014 when mother of the complainant-Smt. Kaulan Devi, at about 6.00-6.30 p.m., from the common passage, was proceeding towards her green house, then, Bhagirath son of Shri Gadku has prevented his mother in a particular way and beaten her with fist and kick blow. 7.3. When the mother of the complainant, in order to save herself screamed, then, at once, he came out from his house and reached on the spot, where, he has requested Bhagirth not to beat his mother, upon which, Bhagirath and Gadku Ram have beaten him also. 7.4. Anju Devi wife of Bhagi Rath and Geeta Devi wife of Gadku Ram, came there and they had also abused the mother of the complainant and also beaten her. Due to their beatings, the complainant suffered injuries over his left ear and other parts of the body and his mother sustained injuries on left side of her face, legs, hands, arms, back and other parts of the body. 7.5. Complainant and his mother were saved by Sanjeev Kumar, his wife Veeba Devi and Ajeet Singh. After beating them the assailants had gone to their house. Thereafter, they were taken to hospital at Bhota. 7.6. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case under Sections 341 , 323, 504 and 34 of the IPC and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8. After beating them the assailants had gone to their house. Thereafter, they were taken to hospital at Bhota. 7.6. On the basis of the above facts, the police registered the case under Sections 341 , 323, 504 and 34 of the IPC and criminal machinery swung into motion. 8. The I.O., thereafter, prepared the spot map and the complainant and his mother were got medico-legally examined. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. 9. During investigation, the Medical Officer has given the final opinion qua the injuries found on the person of Kaulan Devi. As per the opinion, injuries No.1 to 4 and 6 are simple in nature, whereas, injury No.5 is grievous in nature, upon which, Section 325 IPC was added. 10. During investigation, accused persons namely Bhagi Rath son of Gadku Ram, Gadku Ram son of Pohali Ram, Geeta Devi wife of Gadku Ram, and Anju Kumari wife of Bhagirath, were arrested. 11. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, upon which, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance. 12. On the basis of report, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court found a prima-facie case, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341 , 325, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of the IPC , against accused Bhagirath, whereas Sections 325 , 323, 504 read with , was found against Gadku Ram, Geeta Devi and Anju Kumari, as such, they were charge-sheeted accordingly, vide order dated 10.08.2015. 13. When the charges, so framed, were put to the accused persons, they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence, to substantiate the charges framed against them. Consequently, the prosecution has examined, as many as, 9 witnesses. 14. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused persons, was put to them, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused persons have denied the entire prosecution case and took the simplicitor defence that they are innocent. However, in defence, the accused have not led any evidence. 15. 14. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused persons, was put to them, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused persons have denied the entire prosecution case and took the simplicitor defence that they are innocent. However, in defence, the accused have not led any evidence. 15. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, as well as, learned defence counsel, has convicted accused Bhagirath and Gadku Ram, whereas accused Geeta Devi and Anju Kumari, have been acquitted, from the offences, for which, they had been charge- sheeted, vide judgment of conviction, dated 15.12.2017. Accused Bhagi Rath and Gadku Ram were sentenced, vide order order of sentenced dated 16.12.2017, as referred to above. 16. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, accused Bhagi Rath and Gadku Ram have filed appeal before the learned First Appellate Court and their appeal has been allowed by learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.08.2019. 17. The said judgment has been assailed, by way of the present appeal, before this Court, mainly, on the ground that the learned First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence, in the proper perspective and unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence have been adopted. 18. According to the appellants, the reasoning given by the learned First Appellate Court is manifestly unreasonable and unsustainable to discard the well reasoned and consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, on the material point, in the absence of any proof of enmity. 19. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that accused Bhagirath has not been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 341 IPC , whereas, as per the judgment of conviction dated 15.12.2017, accused Bhagirath has specifically been convicted for the offence punishable under . 20. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly discarded the statement of PW-4 Kaulan Devi, whereas, her version, according to learned Additional Advocate General, is natural and reliable. Moreover, she has suffered injuries, in the incident, in question. Similarly, statement of PW-2 Veena Devi has also wrongly been discarded. 21. 20. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly discarded the statement of PW-4 Kaulan Devi, whereas, her version, according to learned Additional Advocate General, is natural and reliable. Moreover, she has suffered injuries, in the incident, in question. Similarly, statement of PW-2 Veena Devi has also wrongly been discarded. 21. On the basis of the above grounds of appeal, Mr.Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, may kindly be set aside and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned trial Court, qua accused Bhagirath and Gadku Ram, may kindly be restored. 22. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra and Mr.Mohinder Verma, Advocates, appearing for the accused persons, have vehemently opposed the arguments addressed by learned Additional Advocate General, on the ground that sine qua non for acceptance of the appeal, in the present case, is perversity, which, according them, could not be pointed out, in the well reasoned judgment, passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Reiterating their stand, as taken before the learned First Appellate Court, they have prayed that the appeal sans merit and the same may kindly be dismissed. 23. In order to decide the present appeal, in an effective manner, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence so adduced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court. 24. PW-1, Dr. P.K. Soni, Associate Professor, Dr. Rajender Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, has deposed that on 30.06.2014, he has given the CT Scan report, after perusing MLC CT No.67/3781. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the CT Scan was conducted on 30.06.2014. 25. PW-2 Veena Devi, deposed about the fact that on 12.06.2024, she along with her husband was present at her house, then, she heard the noice of screaming. Thereafter, they had run towards green house. When, they reached there, they noticed, Bhagirath, Gadku Ram, Anjna Devi and Geeta Devi, were beating their mother (mother-in-law), and brother-in-law (Jeth) Braham Dass with fists and kicks blow. In the meanwhile, Ajeet Singh son of Santokha Ram, also reached there. Thereafter, they saved her mother-in-law and brother-in- law from the assailants. Thereafter, they had run towards green house. When, they reached there, they noticed, Bhagirath, Gadku Ram, Anjna Devi and Geeta Devi, were beating their mother (mother-in-law), and brother-in-law (Jeth) Braham Dass with fists and kicks blow. In the meanwhile, Ajeet Singh son of Santokha Ram, also reached there. Thereafter, they saved her mother-in-law and brother-in- law from the assailants. Apart from this, this witness has also deposed about the injuries, which were found on the person of injured. Thereafter, the assailants had gone to their house and the injured were taken to PHC Bhota. 26. This witness, in the opening line of her cross- examination, has admitted that there is civil dispute with regard to the land between her mother-in-law and Gadku Ram and the dispute, with regard to the alleged scuffle, was also pending at the relevant time. She has admitted that Gadku Ram has started construction work about 7 days prior to the incident. She has feigned ignorance about the fact that her mother-in- law, brother-in-law (Jeth), sister-in-law (Jethani) were removing the supports, which were placed on the spot for laying the balcony. She has also admitted that they were abusing Kaulan Devi and Braham Dass. Self stated that Gadku Ram was abusing them. She has admitted that Gadku Ram has not raised any pillar in the passage and he was not raising any construction of the pillar, at that time. She has also feigned ignorance about the fact that her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law were asking Gadku Ram not to raise construction of the pillar in the passage. 27. This witness has also admitted that on the one side of the passage, land of Braham Dass is there. She has admitted that Kaulan Devi, Braham Dass and Sanjeev Kumar and this witness are facing criminal case, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3. They have also assailed the order passed by the said Court, by way of revision, before the learned Sessions Judge. She has also admitted that Kaulan Devi and Braham Dass, raised quarrel with other party, as the other party had put support for balcony in the passage. She has further admitted that the passage leading to their green house, is in their Courtyard. She has also admitted that Kaulan Devi and Braham Dass, raised quarrel with other party, as the other party had put support for balcony in the passage. She has further admitted that the passage leading to their green house, is in their Courtyard. Further, she has admitted that neither she, nor, her husband was on the spot, but, she has admitted that later on, she has come to the spot. 28. PW-3 Braham Nath, has stated that he is working as Laboratory Assistant in a School at Dangar. On 12.04.2025, his mother Kaulan Devi, had gone to her green house. On the way, Gadku Ram and Bhagirath, who had raised pillar and supports for balcony and closed the passage, has stated that passage is not there. Thereafter, when this witness was going to cut grass to his field, then, he heard the screaming of his mother. Thereafter, this witness rushed to the spot and saw that Gadku Ram Bhagirath, Geeta Devi and Anju Devi, were beating his mother with fist and kick blows. Thereafter, they had also beaten this witness. Meanwhile, his brother Sanjeev and his wife, came to the spot. The incident was also witnessed by Ajeet Kumar, who was coming to his house from his shop. The incident had taken place at about 6.00-6.15 p.m. Thereafter, Ambulance was called and they were taken to Bhota Hospital, from where, his mother was taken to Hamirpur, where she remained admit. This witness has also sustained injuries and the police recorded his statement, under Section 154 Cr.PC, which is Ex.PW-3/A. Thereafter, the police visited the spot. Police has also collected their MLCs. 29. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that they are having civil litigation with accused party. The said case is pending in Court No.3 and the title of the said case is Kaulan Devi versus Gadku Ram. He has denied the suggestion that he and his family members had blocked the passage, but admitted that due to blockade in the passage Gadku Ram had filed a case in the Court of SDM and now the said matter is pending in the Court of Sessions. He has admitted that in order to raise construction, supports were fixed there, which were removed, after 10-15, days. The said supports were not in the passage. He has admitted that in order to raise construction, supports were fixed there, which were removed, after 10-15, days. The said supports were not in the passage. When, the suggestion was put with regard to the passage to green house, he has justified the same by admitting that there was passage from two sides to approach the green house and his land. Self stated that the passage in dispute is a shortcut and the said passage also leads to their cow shed. He has also admitted that Sanjeev and his wife were not present. Self stated that later on, they came to the spot. The litigation, which was concluded before the Settlement Officer has also been admitted by them, but, justified that with regard to correction of the revenue record. He has also admitted that age of his mother is 90 years. He has also admitted that the statement of this witness, Sanjeev and Veena Devi and Ajeet were recorded in the Police Station and the Police has visited the spot on the next day. 30. In the further cross-examination, this witness has admitted that Sanjeev and his wife and Ajeet, have not witnessed the quarrel, but, voluntarily stated that Ajeet was returning back from his shop. 31. PW-4 Kaulan Devi, has admitted that she is doing household work and 2-3 days ago, when, she was away to green house, then, Bhagirath has told her that passage is not there, upon which, she has claimed that the said passage is owned by them, but he refused to acknowledge the same. Thereafter, Bhagirath, Gadku Ram Geeta Devi and Anju Devi, had beaten her with kicks and fists blows, upon which, her son Braham Dass came to the spot. He was also beaten by them. Thereafter, Sanjeev and his wife Veena reached there, who had taken her away from there, as, she has become unconscious. She was taken to Hospital. 32. According to this witness, she sustained injuries, on her leg and other parts of the body. Her medico-legal examination was conducted from Bhota Hospital and she was referred to Hamirpur, from where, she was referred to Tanda. She has admitted that she is having the litigation with Gadku Ram. She has admitted that Gadku Ram, when put slab, over his house, has fixed the supports in the passage, but stated that the said passage is owned by her. She has admitted that she is having the litigation with Gadku Ram. She has admitted that Gadku Ram, when put slab, over his house, has fixed the supports in the passage, but stated that the said passage is owned by her. She has however, feigned her ignorance that the said supports were in the passage. She has admitted that on the passage, fencing was done to prevent the entry of cattle. She has also admitted that on the spot Braham Dass, Sanjeev, Veena and Ajeet were not there, however, stated that when she was beaten by the assailants, they came to the spot. 33. PW-6, Ajeet Singh, has deposed that at about 6.00-6.30 p.m., when, he was returning back to his home, he noticed that Kaulan Devi and Bhagirath were quarreling with each other. Bhagirath and Gadku Ram were quarreling with Kaulan Devi. Thereafter, Kaulan Devi was taken to hospital, as she has sustained injuries in the incident. Her medico-legal examination was conducted. 34. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that Kaulan Devi and accused persons were having civil litigation between them. She has denied the suggestion that quarrel had not taken place in his presence. He has also denied that he appeared as witness in a case filed against Gadku Ram. He has also admitted that had Gadku Ram not put supports for the balcony, in the passage, quarrel could have not been taken place. This witness has also admitted that when he reached on the spot, a quarrel had already taken place. 35. PW-9, Dr. Vandna, has medico-legally examined the injured on 12.06.2014 and she has noticed the following injuries on the person of Braham Dass:- i) lacerated wound 0.25x0.25 cm left ear with fresh bleeding. ii) lacerated scratch on right arm of .25 x 2.5 cm with blood on it. iii) Generalized body ache with tenderness all over body with no external deformity. 36. This witness has declared the said injuries as simple in nature. On the same day, she has also medico-legally examined Kaulan Devi and noticed the following injuries:- i) lacerated abrasion of 0.25 x 0.5 cm on the left side of cheek with blood on it. ii) Bluish discoloration with tenderness on right hand with wrist. iii) Bluish discoloration of 12 x .6 cm tenderness on left side with general pain in the lower region. ii) Bluish discoloration with tenderness on right hand with wrist. iii) Bluish discoloration of 12 x .6 cm tenderness on left side with general pain in the lower region. No external deformity iv) Generalized pain with tenderness all over abdomen with bluish discoloration; v) Acute pain with tenderness in human region with inability to sit. vi) Generalized body ache all over the body with tenderness no other external injuries seen. 37. This witness has advised X-ray of right wrist with hand (AP lateral), X-ray left knee with tibia (AP Lateral), X-ray lumber spine (AP lateral) and ultrasound abdomen and issued MLS Ex.PW-9/C. After perusing the CT Scan report, she has given the opinion with respect to the CT Scan on 07.08.2024, according to which, there was fracture of D-12 vertebral body with post displacement of fractured fragrance. She has declared all the injuries, except injury No.5, as simple in nature, whereas, declared injury No.5 as grievous in nature. 38. This witness, in the cross-examination has categorically admitted the suggestions that all the injuries are possible, if a person falls on hard surface. Lastly, she has admitted that it is not necessary, if an old person falls on the hard surface, the injuries mentioned in Ex.PW-9/C can be possible. 39. This is the entire evidence led by the prosecution. 40. In this case, the learned trial Court has convicted accused Bhagi Rath and Gadku Ram, whereas, learned First Appellate Court has acquitted both the accused for the offences, for which, they have been convicted, by the learned trial Court. With the acquittal, by the learned First Appellate Court, accused Bhagirath and Gadku Ram are entitled to take defence that they are presumed to be innocent. 41. It is no longer res integra that while deciding the appeal against acquittal, in the absence of perversity, in the judgment, interference by this Court, is not warranted. 42. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mrinal Das & others vs. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 479, has laid down parameters, in which, interference can be made, in a judgment of acquittal. Relevant paragraphs 13 and 14, of the said judgment, are reproduced, as under: “13. It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. Relevant paragraphs 13 and 14, of the said judgment, are reproduced, as under: “13. It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. 14. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appealagainst acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.” 43. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrinal Das’s case supra, this Court has to examine whether the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court, fall within the definition of ‘perverse findings’ or not. 44. Apart from the injured, the prosecution has examined Veena Devi, as eye witness. 44. Apart from the injured, the prosecution has examined Veena Devi, as eye witness. However, when, the witness, along with other witnesses, has admitted the pendency of the civil, as well as, criminal litigation, between both the parties, in such situation, before accepting the version of the witnesses, this Court has to take extra care and caution, as, she has every reason to depose against the accused persons. 45. Witness Veena Devi, on one hand, has deposed that when, she reached on the spot, Bhagirath, Gadku Ram, Anju Devi and Geeta Devi, were beating Kaulan Devi and Braham Nath, whereas, on the other hand, in the cross-examination, she has admitted that neither, she, nor, her husband was present, on the spot, but, volunteered that they reached on the spot, later on. Meaning thereby, whatever had allegedly happened on the spot,was not witnessed, by this witness. 46. Another witness Ajeet Singh, has categorically stated that when, he reached on the spot, quarrel had already taken place. Meaning thereby, both the eye witnesses, who have been examined, by the prosecution, were not present, on the spot, at the relevant time. 47. The material witness Sanjeev Kumar, husband of Veena Devi, PW-2, has not been examined by the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it. If the material witness has simply been given up, it would give an occasion for this Court to come to the conclusion that had the said witness been examined, he would have not supported the case of the prosecution. 48. Now, coming to the statements of injured Braham Nath (PW-3) and Kaulan Devi (PW-4), both these witnesses have categorically admitted the suggestions with regard to the pendency of the civil and criminal litigation between them. 49. Once, it has been proved that there was litigation, then, the testimony of these alleged injured is to be scrutinized with extra care and caution. When the alleged eye witnesses, on oath, have deposed that they, when reached, at the spot, the alleged incident had already taken place, then, deposition of Braham Nath, qua the fact that on hearing his screamings, his brother Sanjeev and his wife came to the spot, cannot be accepted as gospel truth. 50. When the alleged eye witnesses, on oath, have deposed that they, when reached, at the spot, the alleged incident had already taken place, then, deposition of Braham Nath, qua the fact that on hearing his screamings, his brother Sanjeev and his wife came to the spot, cannot be accepted as gospel truth. 50. Similarly, the deposition of these witnesses qua the fact that they have witnessed the incident, cannot be accepted as a gospel truth, as PW-6 Ajeet Singh, has categorically stated that when, he reached at the spot, the quarrel had already taken place. Even, Braham Nath, in the cross-examination, has admitted the suggestion that Sanjeev and his wife and Ajeet have not witnessed the incident, but, volunteered that Ajeet, at that time, was coming from his shop. Meaning thereby, the above said independent witnesses have not witnessed the incident. 51. Even, Kaulan Devi (PW-4), has admitted the absence of Braham Nath, Sanjeev, Veena and Ajeet, on the spot. Meaning thereby, the only eye witness, in the present case, is PW-4, who is having civil, as well as, criminal litigation with the accused persons. 52. In such situation, judging the statement of PW-4 Kaulan Devi, on the touchstone of truthful witness, this Court is of the view that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, so adduced, by the prosecution and the findings of learned First Appellate Court does not fall within the definition of perverse findings. 53. Although, there is no bar for the appellate Court to interfere with the findings qua acquittal, in favour of the accused persons, but, for that purpose, first of all the Court has to record the positive findings. It is well settled, at this stage, that where two views are possible, then, the view, which has been taken by the Court acquitting the accused, should be accepted, by the Appellate Court. 54. My, this view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat , (2002) 3 SCC 57 , wherein, it has been held that in a case, where two views are possible, then, the one favouring the accused’s innocence should be adopted. 55. No other point urged or argued, before this Court. 56. 55. No other point urged or argued, before this Court. 56. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned First Appellate Court, in the present case, is the possible view. 57. Hence, no ground for interference with the well reasoned judgment of the learned First Appellate Court is made out and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The personal and surety bonds furnished by the accused, are discharged. 58. Record be sent back.