JUDGMENT : RAKESH KAINTHLA, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.12.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan, District Solan (HP) (learned Trial Court), vide which the respondents (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charges framed against them. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 447, 427 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 3(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SC & ST Act”) read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that the victim Bhungar Ram Bhatia (PW1) and the accused Jagdish purchased one biswa of land bearing khasra no. 110 each from Abhi Ram in 2000. Accused Jagdish constructed a house after the purchase, whereas the land purchased by the informant was lying vacant. The informant started the construction of his house on 31.08.2008. He had constructed four pillars. The informant engaged Pawan Kumar (PW2) as a contractor to carry out the construction. The informant went to Chandigarh on 22.09.2008. He was returning to his home when he received a call on 23.09.2008 at about 05.00 PM that the construction was damaged by Jagdish. The informant went to the spot. Pawan Kumar revealed that Jagdish and Naresh had come to the spot and pelted stones at the labourers. They abused the informant in the name of his caste and said that they would not permit a member of the scheduled caste to construct a house near their house. Pawan Kumar had jumped to save himself, and the Rs.30,000/- kept by him in his pocket fell. Jagdish and Naresh damaged one pillar and created a hole in another pillar. The shuttering was removed and thrown into the nala. The informant suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The incident was witnessed by Ward Member Babu Ram, Durga Ram, Chet Ram, Dhana Ram, and Mahender, who were present on the road. The matter was reported to Kailash Chand Gupta (Pradhan), who tried to reconcile the matter; however, the reconciliation could not be effected. The informant suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The incident was witnessed by Ward Member Babu Ram, Durga Ram, Chet Ram, Dhana Ram, and Mahender, who were present on the road. The matter was reported to Kailash Chand Gupta (Pradhan), who tried to reconcile the matter; however, the reconciliation could not be effected. Hence, the matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR (Ex. PW21/A). Kulwant Singh (PW20) conducted the investigation. He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex. PW20/A). He seized the shuttering lying on the spot and handed it over on supurdari vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). He took the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P4). Narveer Singh (PW16) continued the investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. Dinesh Kumar (PW18) conducted the remaining investigation. The informant produced the copies of the Jamabandi (Ex. P6), sale deed (Ex. P5), technical report (Ex. P7), and estimate (Ex. P8), which were seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). Dinesh Kumar filed applications (Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW17/A) for obtaining the pedigree table and caste certificate of the parties. Keshav Ram (PW17) issued the caste certificates of the informant (Ex. P10), accused Jagdish Chand (Ex. PW17/B), Naresh Kumar (Ex. PW17/C) and Shankar (Ex.PW17/D). An application (Ex. PW14/A) was filed for the demarcation of khasra No. 110. Pyare Lal (PW14) issued the report (Ex. PW14/B). The statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 336, 427, 447 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(v) of the SC & ST Act, read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses to prove its case. Bhungar Ram Bhatia (PW1) is the informant. Pawan Kumar (PW2) is the contractor and an eyewitness. Ravinder Kumar (PW3) is an eye witness. Rinku (PW4) and Pankaj (PW5) were carrying out the construction. Sunil Kumar (PW6) and Harish Kumar (PW9) are the informant’s sons. Dinesh Kumar (PW7) was posted as Panchayat Secretary, who had produced the record. Manohar Lal (PW8) developed the photographs and issued the certificate. Hari Ram (PW10) conducted the demarcation. Shobha Ram (PW11) proved the sale in favour of the parties. Sunil Kumar (PW6) and Harish Kumar (PW9) are the informant’s sons. Dinesh Kumar (PW7) was posted as Panchayat Secretary, who had produced the record. Manohar Lal (PW8) developed the photographs and issued the certificate. Hari Ram (PW10) conducted the demarcation. Shobha Ram (PW11) proved the sale in favour of the parties. Krishan Lal (PW12) was working as a Patwari who issued revenue papers and caste certificates. Ram Gopal (PW13) brought the demarcation file. Pyare Lal (PW14) was posted as a Patwari who was present during the demarcation and issued the clarification. ASI Swatanter Singh (PW15) witnessed the demarcation, Dy.SP N.S. Rathore (PW16) conducted a partial investigation. Keshav Ram (PW17) was posted as Naib Tehsildar who issued the caste certificates. Dinesh Kumar (PW18) and Kulwant Singh (PW20) conducted the investigation. Ram Paul (PW19) issued the estimate. Inspector Baldev Thakur (PW21) signed the FIR. 5. Accused in their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. They stated that there was a civil dispute between them and the informant. An injunction order was issued by the Civil Court. They examined Brij Lal (DW1) and Damodar Verma (DW2) to prove their defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the parties owned the land jointly. Civil litigation was pending between the informant and the accused, in which an order of status quo was issued. Pawan Kumar stated that Jagdish and his brother came to the spot and disclosed the issuance of the injunction order. Land was not partitioned by the metes and bounds. The co-owner could not have raised construction without the consent of the other co- owners. Exclusive possession of the informant, Bhungar Ram, was not proved. The prosecution's case that the accused had prevented the informant from exercising his rights over the land was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt; hence, the accused were acquitted of the charged offences. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material on record. The evidence on record showed that the mutual partition had taken place between the parties. The informant had raised the pillars, which could not have been constructed overnight. The existence of the pillars showed the informant’s exclusive possession. Eyewitnesses and the photographs proved that the construction was damaged. The evidence on record showed that the mutual partition had taken place between the parties. The informant had raised the pillars, which could not have been constructed overnight. The existence of the pillars showed the informant’s exclusive possession. Eyewitnesses and the photographs proved that the construction was damaged. The accused had no right to take the law into their own hands. The minor contradictions were bound to come with the passage of time, and these cannot be used to discard the present case. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. I have heard Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant/State, and Mr. Pranshul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/accused. 9. Mr. Lokinder Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/ State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. It was duly proved by the evidence on record that the accused had damaged the pillar by taking the law into their own hand. This was done to prevent the informant from using his land for raising construction. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Mr. Pranshul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading of evidence, omission to consider the material evidence and no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal based on the evidence led before the learned Trial Court. It was observed: “11. It was observed: “11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, 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 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325], SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding the 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 the exercise of such power and an appellate court, on the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and 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 the 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 an acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with an 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 the case of acquittal, there is a 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 H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748], this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 8) 8. … 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.” 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 judgment 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 judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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.” 12. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 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.” 13. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. Informant Bhungar Ram was not present on the spot; he was told about the incident by Pawan Kumar on 23.09.2008 at 05.00 PM. Therefore, he is not a spot witness, and his testimony cannot be used to prove the prosecution’s case. 15. Pawan Kumar (PW2) stated that on 23.09.2008 at about 04.30 – 05.00 PM, he and his labourers were at work. Jagdish and his brother Naresh came to the spot and hurled filthy abuses. They stated that the Court had issued an injunction order. They asked Pawan to call the owner, and they would see how he would raise construction on the spot. They abused the owner in the name of his caste. He ran away from the spot, and Rs.30,000/- lying in his pocket fell on the spot. They stated that the Court had issued an injunction order. They asked Pawan to call the owner, and they would see how he would raise construction on the spot. They abused the owner in the name of his caste. He ran away from the spot, and Rs.30,000/- lying in his pocket fell on the spot. Jagdish and Naresh took Jhabbal (iron bar) and Ghan (sledge hammer) and damaged the shuttering, one pillar completely and another pillar partly. The accused also threatened the workers, and they stopped the construction work. He stated in his cross-examination that he had taken a contract with the Government School, Nawgaon. He admitted that Shankar had made a complaint against him regarding the quality of construction. The construction work was started on 31.08.2008, and the pillars were raised from 18th to 20th August. He denied that he was making a false statement. 16. Ravinder Kumar (PW3) stated that Pawan Kumar and labourers were present on the construction site. He heard some noise. Jagdish called Pawan and said that he had obtained a stay order from the Court. He abused the informant in the name of the caste and asked him to stop the construction. Jagdish and Naresh pelted stones at the labourers, and the labourers ran away from the spot. In the meantime, a bus arrived on the spot and he boarded the bus. He stated in his cross-examination that Nala, where he was standing, is located at a distance of about 300 meters from the house of Jagdish. He had not disclosed the name of the contractor to the police. He denied that he was not on speaking terms with the accused, and he was deposing falsely against them due to enmity. Pawan Kumar had sustained an injury on his foot. 17. Rinku (PW4) stated that Parkash, Sunder, Binku and others were working in the construction. Four pillars were raised on the spot, and shuttering work was going on. Jagdish and his brother Naresh Kumar came and asked about the owner. They started pelting stones and asked them to stop the work. Pawan got frightened and ran towards dhaba. The accused damaged the shuttering with stones and threw some shuttering into the nala. The accused brought Jhhabal (iron bar) and Ghan (sledgehammer). They damaged one pillar completely and another pillar partially. He stated in his cross-examination that the pillars were completed on 27.09.2008. Pawan got frightened and ran towards dhaba. The accused damaged the shuttering with stones and threw some shuttering into the nala. The accused brought Jhhabal (iron bar) and Ghan (sledgehammer). They damaged one pillar completely and another pillar partially. He stated in his cross-examination that the pillars were completed on 27.09.2008. He was puzzled and did not notice the number of people in the dhaba of Neem Chand. He denied that no pillars were constructed on the 23rd and that no damage was caused. 18. Pankaj Kumar (PW5) stated that shuttering work was given to him by Pawan Kumar. He, Pawan and 3-4 persons were present on the spot. The accused came and asked to stop the construction work. The accused started abusing and pelting stones. They damaged the pillars with the help of Jhabbal (iron bar) and Ghan (sledgehammer). The police seized the shuttering. He stated in his cross-examination that he started shuttering work from 22.09.2008, and six pillars were raised. The pillars were completed two days before 22.09.2008. He had not told the police that the shuttering belonged to him. He did not get the shuttering released from the police. 19. Sunil Kumar (PW6) stated in his cross-examination that he was told about the incident by Rupu, one of the labourers. He called his father (the informant) and told him about the incident. Thus, he was not present on the spot and was told about the incident by Lekh Raj. Hence, his testimony is hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. 20. Harish Kumar (PW9) stated that he was informed telephonically about the damage to the pillars. He had handed over Rs.30,000/- to Pawan Kumar, which was misplaced in the incident. 21. This is the entire prosecution evidence led against the accused. 22. Pawan Kumar (PW2) admitted in his cross-examination that a complaint was made against him by Shankar regarding the quality of construction, which shows that he has a motive to depose against the accused. Therefore, his testimony is to be seen with due care and caution. 23. Pawan Kumar (PW2) stated in his cross examination that the work was started on 31.08.2008, and the pillars were constructed by 18th to 20th August. He did not explain that if the work was started on 31st August how the pillars could have been raised by 18th to 20th August. 23. Pawan Kumar (PW2) stated in his cross examination that the work was started on 31.08.2008, and the pillars were constructed by 18th to 20th August. He did not explain that if the work was started on 31st August how the pillars could have been raised by 18th to 20th August. Rinku (PW4) stated in his cross- examination that the pillars were constructed on 27th September 2008. If the pillars were completed on the 27th, they could not have been damaged on the 23rd. Pankaj Kumar (PW5) stated in his cross-examination that he started the shuttering work on 22.09.2008. The pillars were completed two days before 22.09.2008. The informant Bhungar Ram Bhatia stated in his cross-examination that the pillars were constructed before 23.09.2008, three pillars were completed on 21.09.2008, and the fourth pillar was filled. Thus, different witnesses have given different versions regarding the date of the completion of the pillars. 24. Kulwant Singh (PW20) visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW20/A), which shows that one pillar was completely damaged, one pillar was partially damaged, and two pillars were in proper condition. The photograph (Ex. P1), on the other hand, shows a three-storied structure, in which one pillar was damaged and one pillar was partially damaged. It is nobody’s case that the construction of three storeys had been completed; therefore, it is highly doubtful that the photographs pertain to the spot. 25. The defence has also produced the photographs of the spot (mark-D4 and D5 subsequently exhibited as Ex. DC & Ex. DD). Rinku (PW4) admitted that these photographs showed the spot. Manohar Lal (PW8) also stated in his cross-examination that the spot was 20-25 feet below the road, as shown in the photographs (Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 and Ex. DC and Ex. DD). Only iron bars for the construction of the pillars, but no constructed pillars, are visible in the photographs (Ex. DC and Ex. DD). These photographs also show the newspaper Divya Himachal (Ex. DE), which was published on 22.09.2008. It means that photographs could not have been taken before 22.09.2008. The fact that only iron bars are visible in the photographs (Ex. DC and Ex. DD) makes the prosecution’s case suspect that the four pillars were constructed on 23.09.2008. 26. Hari Ram (PW10) conducted the demarcation on 31.12.2008 and issued the report (Ex. P9). It means that photographs could not have been taken before 22.09.2008. The fact that only iron bars are visible in the photographs (Ex. DC and Ex. DD) makes the prosecution’s case suspect that the four pillars were constructed on 23.09.2008. 26. Hari Ram (PW10) conducted the demarcation on 31.12.2008 and issued the report (Ex. P9). The report mentions that ASI Swatanter Singh showed the place where the dispute had occurred, and it was found to be inside khasra No. 110. Significantly, the report does not mention that any completely or partially damaged pillars were found on the spot. Hence, the report does not corroborate the prosecution’s version that any pillars were damaged in Khasra No. 110. 27. Ravinder Kumar (PW3) stated that he witnessed the incident from Kayarad Nala, where he was waiting for the bus. Pawan Kumar (PW2) stated that all the labourers went to the dhaba from where they witnessed the incident. Rinku (PW4) and Pankaj Kumar (PW5) also stated that they witnessed the incident from the dhaba. Manohar Lal (PW8) stated in this cross-examination that the spot is not visible from the nala and dhaba. He was projected as a witness of truth by the prosecution, and his testimony is binding upon the prosecution. His testimony makes the statements of Pawan Kumar (PW2), Ravinder Kumar (PW3), Rinku (PW4) and Pankaj Kumar (PW5) doubtful that they had witnessed the incident from Nala and Dhaba. 28. The informant Bhungar Ram Bhatia (PW1) stated that he had given the contract for the construction of his house to Pawan Kumar for Rs.55,000/-. Four pillars were raised by Pawan Kumar. Pawan Kumar also stated that he had taken a contract from Bhungar Ram for Rs.55,000/- for the construction of the house. Four pillars were constructed on the spot. The estimate of the damaged pillars prepared by Ram Paul (PW19) shows that a loss of Rs.2,00,850/- was caused. It is not explained how the damage to two pillars could have resulted in the loss of Rs.2,00,850/-, when the contract for the construction of the whole house was for Rs.55,000/-. 29. Pawan Kumar stated that Pankaj and his brother Naresh asked him to call the owner on the spot by abusing him in the name of his caste. It is not explained how the damage to two pillars could have resulted in the loss of Rs.2,00,850/-, when the contract for the construction of the whole house was for Rs.55,000/-. 29. Pawan Kumar stated that Pankaj and his brother Naresh asked him to call the owner on the spot by abusing him in the name of his caste. Ravinder Kumar said that he heard Jagdish telling Pawan that he (Jagdish) had obtained a stay from the Court, and the owner, who was abused in the name of the caste, should be called to the spot. Rinku (PW4) stated that Jagdish and Naresh Kumar came to the spot and inquired about the owner after abusing him in the name of the caste. Pankaj Kumar stated that the accused said that the owner, who was abused in the name of his caste, should be called to the spot. 30. Thus, only Rinku has stated that Jagdish had abused the owner in the name of his caste. The other witnesses stated that both the accused abused the owner in the name of the caste. It is difficult to believe that both the accused would be acting in concert and abusing the owner in the name of the caste in unison, like a chorus or orchestra. They have not attributed any specific role to the individual accused, and it is difficult to rely upon the generalised statement made by the witnesses that the accused had abused the informant in the name of his caste. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pandurang vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216 , that it is unsafe to rely upon the omnibus statement that the accused had committed the offence. It was observed: “Rasikabai says that the "accused" raised their axes and sticks and threatened her when she called out to them, but that again is an all-embracing statement which we are not prepared to take literally in the absence of further particulars. People do not ordinarily act in unison like a Greek chorus, and, quite apart from dishonesty, this is a favourite device with witnesses who are either not mentally alert or are mentally lazy and are given to loose thinking. They are often apt to say "all" even when they only saw "some" because they are too lazy, mentally, to differentiate. People do not ordinarily act in unison like a Greek chorus, and, quite apart from dishonesty, this is a favourite device with witnesses who are either not mentally alert or are mentally lazy and are given to loose thinking. They are often apt to say "all" even when they only saw "some" because they are too lazy, mentally, to differentiate. Unless, therefore, a witness particularises when there are a number of accused, it is ordinarily unsafe to accept omnibus inclusions like this at their face value.” 31. Therefore, the generalised statement that the accused abused the informant in the name of the caste cannot be relied upon. 32. Pawan Kumar and the other witnesses claimed that the accused pelted the stones; however, Kulwant Singh (PW20) has not stated that any stones were found on the spot. The photographs and the site plan also do not show any stones. It is trite to say that the men may lie, but circumstances do not; therefore, the absence of the stones on the spot falsifies the prosecution’s case that the accused had pelted stones upon Pawan and the labourers. 33. It is undisputed that the khasra No. 110 was jointly owned by the informant and accused Jagdish. This fact was also recorded in the report of demarcation. The informant did not claim that the land was partitioned; therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the exclusive possession of the informant was not proved, and the offence punishable under Section 447 of the Criminal Trespass was not made out. 34. Therefore, there are various infirmities in the prosecution’s case, the benefit of which would go to the accused. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not substitute the view taken by the learned Trial Court while deciding an appeal against the acquittal, even if another view is possible. 35. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed. 36. Learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not substitute the view taken by the learned Trial Court while deciding an appeal against the acquittal, even if another view is possible. 35. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed. 36. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondents/accused are directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondents/accused on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 37. A copy of this judgment, along with the record of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.