JUDGMENT : ROMESH VERMA, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(1), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P, dated 29.06.2013 in a police challan filed under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), in case FIR No. 109 of 2011 dated 4.4.2011, registered at Police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., whereby the present respondent has been acquitted of the aforesaid charges. 2. The story of the prosecution, as projected, is that on 4th April 2011 at 12.40 p.m. in the afternoon, the President of Gram Panchayat, Paral, made a telephonic call at Chowki Thakur Dwara that Vijay Kumar, son of Shri Ajit Singh, was beaten up by Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand (accused/respondent herein) and on account of this Vijay Kumar (Victim) was taken to Government Hospital Hazipur. On the said information, ASI/IO Ashwani Kumar made a telephonic call to doctor Sukhdev M.D , CHC on his telephone number and inquired about the health of Vijay Kumar. The doctor informed the I.O. that the victim is unconscious. Thereafter, ASI Ashwani Kumar along with Rajiv Kumar went to the spot at Village Paral and statement of father of Sh. Vijay Kumar under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Father of victim made a statement that he is a permanent resident of said area and he is an agriculturist by profession and his son Sh. Vijay Kumar on 03.11.2011 at about 6.30 p.m. in the evening went to the house of Sh. Malquiat Singh for having dinner and to attend jagrata. His son told him that he will come back soon. However, when his son did not return till 3:00.a.m in the morning, he went towards the house of Malquiat Singh. After some distance, he heard noise of beatings by certain persons. Immediately when he reached the spot, he saw that his son was being beaten up in order to end his life. When he raised hue and cry, then the persons, who gave beatings, ran away from the spot. However, he identified Gurmel Singh @ Gelu and Sh. Subhash Chand resident of Paral. He stated that the aforesaid two persons in order to kill his son gave beatings and he suffered injuries on his head. Thereafter his family members informed the police and Vijay Kumar was taken to hospital at Hazipur. Immediately, after some time, Sh. However, he identified Gurmel Singh @ Gelu and Sh. Subhash Chand resident of Paral. He stated that the aforesaid two persons in order to kill his son gave beatings and he suffered injuries on his head. Thereafter his family members informed the police and Vijay Kumar was taken to hospital at Hazipur. Immediately, after some time, Sh. Vijay Kumar died due to injuries and postmortem was conducted at Government Hospital Nurpur. Thereafter, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was deleted and Section 302 of IPC was inserted in the FIR. The spot map was prepared and the spot was got photographed. On the spot, the clothes of Sh. Vijay Kumar, which were worn by him were taken into possession and seizure memo, to this effect was prepared. After the incident, the accused Gurmel Singh @ Gelu and Subhash Chand fled away from the scene of occurrence and subsequently they were arrested by the Investigating Officer. It was stated that the accused persons told that about 4-5 months back they had lend Rs.1,000/-to Vijay Kumar, out of which Rs.700/- was given by Subhash Chand and Rs.300/- was given by Gurmel Singh to him. Despite asking for the said amount Vijay Kumar did not repay the said amount. 3. During the investigation, it was found that the accused on 03.4.2011 in the afternoon were sitting beside a rivulet and they had consumed liquor. They were having some left out liquor and in the evening both the accused persons consumed the same. On the date of occurrence in the night at about 01.30 to 2.00 a.m., the accused persons went towards the house of Malquiat Singh because there was jagrata in his house. Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand took the deceased Vijay Kumar out of the house. They started hurling abuses upon him. 4. It has also come in the investigation that when Vijay Kumar refused to repay the amount of Rs.1000/- to the accused persons, then at a distance of 50 to 60 meters, the head of Vijay Kumar was banged on the bricks of path. As a result of which his clothes and vest were torn. Due to beatings given to Vijay Kumar by the accused persons, he died on the spot. As a result of which his clothes and vest were torn. Due to beatings given to Vijay Kumar by the accused persons, he died on the spot. It has been reported in the final report that before getting unconscious, the victim told his father Ajit Singh, his brothers Raman Kumar and Narinder Singh, mother Champa Devi, Phufa Ram Asra that Gurmel @ Gelu and Subhash Chand on account of payment of Rs.1000/- banged his head on the bricks of the road. 5. On completion of investigation, the police presented the challan against the accused in the Court for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. 6. On finding prima-facie case, charge sheet under section 302 read with section 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses in support of its case. 8. Thereafter, the respondents were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against them and claimed themselves to be innocent. However, the respondents did not lead any evidence in their defence. 9. On evaluting entire oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution on record, the learned court below has acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. 10. We have heard Shri I.N. Mehta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/state and Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate, for the respondents and have gone through the record. 11. At the outset, it is necessary to reproduce the entire evidence led by the prosecution on record. 12. PW-18 ASI Ashwani Kumar, who reiterated the facts as written in the final report, in his examination in-chief, deposed that on 05.4.2011, accused Gurmel Singh handed over one pant Ext.P-2, which he was wearing at the time of the occurrence and the same was taken into the possession vide memo Ext.PW13/A and put into a sealed parcel. He identified the parcel Ext.P-1 and Pant Ext.P-2 to be the same which were taken into possession. He identified the parcel Ext.P-1 and Pant Ext.P-2 to be the same which were taken into possession. On 06.4.2011 accused Subhash Chand made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, EX.PW18/F in the presence of witnesses Keval Krishan and Hazara Singh which led to recovery of red shirt and one bedsheet from the premises of Subhash Chand, on the same day, vide seizure memo Ext. PW18/G. 13. In his cross examination, PW18 admitted that he arrested both the accused persons Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand near river, where they were concealing themselves underneath the bushes. He stated that he arrested the accused persons at about 07.45 p.m. He admitted that he did not associate any independent witness at the time he arrested both the accused persons. He denied that he sprinkled the blood on the ‘pant’ of Gurmel Singh. He admitted that Vijay Kumar deceased had some injuries on his person which damaged the function of his brain. He stated that he recorded the statements of about 10-15 persons, who were the members of ‘Jagrata’ and then he stated that it is correct that he did not associate any of those persons whose statements were recorded by him on 5th,6th and 7th April. 14. The prosecution examined PW-1 Sh. Narinder Singh son of Sh. Jeet Singh, the brother of deceased Vijay Kumar. He stated that they are three brothers namely Raman Kumar, Vijay Kumar and himself. Raman Kumar had died. On 03.4.2011, his brother Vijay Kumar had gone to the house of his Uncle Malquiat Singh at about 5/5.30 p.m. to attend ‘ Jagrata’. He along with his brother Raman Kumar, his father and his mother slept in their room. On that day, Ram Asra had also come to their house and he slept in other room. He stated that his father came to the house at about 03.00 to 3.50 a.m. His father told that Vijay Kumar was being beaten by Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand. Thereafter, all of them went to the place of occurrence and they saw that his brother Vijay Kumar was lying in an injured condition on the path. He had sustained injuries on his head and he was crying. PW-1 further stated that they asked Vijay Kumar that as to how he had sustained injuries. Thereafter, all of them went to the place of occurrence and they saw that his brother Vijay Kumar was lying in an injured condition on the path. He had sustained injuries on his head and he was crying. PW-1 further stated that they asked Vijay Kumar that as to how he had sustained injuries. Deceased replied that he was beaten up by accused Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand present in the Court. Vijay Kumar told them that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 1000/- from accused persons and they were insisting for the repayment on the same day. He stated that Vijay Kumar further told them that Gurmel Singh called him from Malquiat’s house and Subhash Chand was also standing outside the house. The accused persons took his brother away from Malquiat’s house where they pushed his brother against pucca brick path again and again and thereafter they took Vijay Kumar to their residence. Thereafter, Pradhan and Panch were also called by his parents. His elder brother Raman Kumar brought a taxi and he was taken to Hazipur Government Hospital. The Medical Officer gave treatment to him and after some time his brother died in the hospital. 15. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that at the time when Pradhan and Panch came to his house, his brother had become unconscious. He admitted that when he met his brother, he had taken only one peg of liquor and this fact was told to him by Malquiat Singh. Later on, he stated that his brother and Malquiat Singh’s brother were taking liquor. The occurrence pertains to 04.4.2011. He has admitted that on 05.4.2011 and 06.4.2011 they gathered the people who were present in ‘Jagrata’ and made enquiry from them. He stated that he cannot tell the name of those persons who told the police that Gurmel Singh came in the house of Malquiat Singh and took Vijay Kumar out. He cannot say whether statements of 10 to 15 persons were recorded or not, who were present there. He admitted that his father only told them that Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand had beaten Vijay Kumar. However, the description of parentage etc. of Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand were not given by his father. He has admitted that there is also another person in the name of Subhash Chand in their Village. He admitted that his father only told them that Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand had beaten Vijay Kumar. However, the description of parentage etc. of Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand were not given by his father. He has admitted that there is also another person in the name of Subhash Chand in their Village. He has stated that his father also told them about the identity of Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand and that name of father of Gurmel Singh was Dhilo and the name of father of Subhash Chand was Jagdish. He has admitted that he is telling the parentage of the accused persons for the first time in the Court today. 16. Dr. Kapil Sharma was examined by the prosecution as PW2 and he stated that pursuant to the application, Board of two Doctors was constituted consisting of him and Dr. Sushil Mahajan. He has stated that in their opinion, the deceased had died due to the head injury leading to massive intracranial haemorrhage leading to shock and death. He has stated that level of ethyl alcohol in the blood of Vijay Kumr was 276.79 mg %. So, the deceased was under alcoholic intoxication at the time of death. 17. In the cross examination PW2 has stated that if a person suffers such type of head injury leading to massive intracranial haemorrhage, then he may or may not be able to make statement. He has admitted that the consumption affects over all of the body. PW2 admitted that vision, speech or hearing also affects depending upon the level of alcohol. He has admitted that presence of alcohol measuring 276.79 mg affects the body. He admitted that in that situation the speech can become slurred and double vision can also occur. He also admitted that gait can become staggering. He admitted that injury described in the postmortem report plus presence of alcohol in quantity of 276.79 mg can further hamper the speech. He has stated that if a person after suffering injuries, as mentioned in postmortem report and the alcohol level as mentioned above, he may not make a coherent speech. 18. PW-3 Dr. Sukh Dev Raj has also reiterated the averments as made by PW2 and stated that patient was smelling of alcohol. He stated that he issued the MLC and examined the patient on the request of police. 19. 18. PW-3 Dr. Sukh Dev Raj has also reiterated the averments as made by PW2 and stated that patient was smelling of alcohol. He stated that he issued the MLC and examined the patient on the request of police. 19. In the cross-examination, PW3 has admitted that such injury can occurr due to fall also. He stated that at the time of examination, the patient was smelling of alcohol and when the patient was brought, he was unconscious. Alongwith these injuries, he was also intoxicated with alcohol and was unable to make any statement. PW-3 deposed that before admission, the patient was suffering from head injury along with alcohol intoxication so any statement given by the patient has no validity in law. 20. He denied that intoxicated person cannot make valid statement and can make coherent speech, self-stated that such person may talk irrelevant speech. 21. PW4 Dr. Vijay Kumar, Scientific Officer, has stated that in the blood sample of Vijay Kumar deceased, Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand, alcohol was detected. In the cross-examination, he stated that in the case of Vijay Kumar alcohol contents were found to be 276.79 mg% and at that percentage of alcohol in blood, person would be in a state of confusion. 22. PW-5 Ashwani Kumar has stated about the photographs taken at the spot including the dead body. 23. PW-6 Dr. S.K. Mahajan has stated about the postmortem on the body of deceased Vijay Kumar. He deposed that in our opinion the deceased had died due to head injury leading to massive intracranial haemorrhage leading to shock and death. He stated that alcohol was detected in the viscera and blood of deceased Vijay Kumar. He has stated that the level of ethyl alcohol in the blood of Vijay Kumar was 276.79 mg %.and in the presence of this much alcohol, the speech becomes slurred and the person who is having this much of alcohol will be in the state of confusion. He stated that head injury plus this much of alcohol will render the man incapable of making statement. 24. Ram Aasra has entered in the witness box as PW7. He has stated that on 3rd April he went to the house of his brother - in-law Jeet Singh, at village Paral and he had gone there to invite them for "Jagrata" . 24. Ram Aasra has entered in the witness box as PW7. He has stated that on 3rd April he went to the house of his brother - in-law Jeet Singh, at village Paral and he had gone there to invite them for "Jagrata" . He stated that in the midnight around 3.00 am due to noise “Hai Hai" he was woken- up by his brother-in- law Jeet Singh and he asked him to accompany to the spot. He accompanied him to the spot and saw that deceased Vijay was lying on the earth and was crying. He was saying that he was beaten up by Subhash and Gurmel. He had sustained a number of injuries. He saw injury on the head of deceased and there was injury on the foot also. When he asked as to why he was beaten up by accused, deceased disclosed that he had borrowed Rs. 1000/- from accused persons and they were asking for re-payment of the same. He stated that one of accused is son of Dhilu and he did not know the name of father of other accused. He did not recognize the accused because occurrence took place in the night. 25. In the cross examination, PW7 stated that Police had also questioned the people, who had assembled to attend "Jagrata” in the house of Malkiat Singh. He has admitted that he is the real relative of Ajit Kumar , who is the father of the deceased. 26. PW-8 Kewal Krishan, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Paral stated that nothing happened in his presence. He stated that he did not know anything about the case and thereafter learned P.P. sought permission to cross examination this witness as he had resiled from his previous statements under section 161 Cr PC. Even though PW-8 was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor at length, however, the witness denied all the material suggestions put to him, except his signatures over Ext. PW8/A. 27. PW-9 Onkar Singh stated that he is an agriculturist and remained associated with the police party and nothing was done by the police in his presence. He stated that when he reached the spot, the police took the deceased to the police. 28. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor sought permission of the court to cross- examine the said witness. On being cross- examined, nothing fruitful was extracted from the witness. 29. He stated that when he reached the spot, the police took the deceased to the police. 28. At this stage, learned Public Prosecutor sought permission of the court to cross- examine the said witness. On being cross- examined, nothing fruitful was extracted from the witness. 29. PW-10 Hazara Singh stated that he does not know anything about the cases and on this the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross-examine the said witness. 30. In his cross examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him and denied the disclosure statement given by accused Subhash Chand to the police. 31. PW-11 Paramvir Singh, who was Patwari, visited the spot on 11.4.2011 at the seen of occurrence 32. PW-12 Rakesh Kumar stated that he was ward member at the relevant time and telephonically informed that Vijay Kumar had sustained injuries and that he was taken to the hospital. He stated that he did not saw, who inflicted the injuries to Vijay Kumar. In cross examination, PW12 stated that he does not know whether quarrel took place between Vijay Kumar and accused persons. 33. PW-13 Constable Rajeev Kumar stated that he remained associated with the police and on 05.4.2011, Gurmel Singh produced one ‘pant’ coloured blue jean, which was taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW13/A. 34. In his cross examination, PW13 stated that on 04.4.2011, when Gurmel Singh was taken into custody, he was wearing the aforesaid pant and no blood stains were seen by him at that time. The blood stains were seen thereafter and it was then that they saw the blood stains on the pant. He denied that blood was seen by ASI and not by him and only ASI can say how the blood came on the ‘pant’. 35. PW-14 Gurdiyal Singh stated that on 5.4.2011 Gurmel Singh had produced one pant coloured blue jean Ex.P2 which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW13/A. In his cross-examination PW14 stated that he had noticed blood stains on pant on 05.4.2011. 36. PW-15 Govind Singh has stated that two parcels intact with seal ‘M’ alongwith sample seal and one envelope were handed over to him by MO, CHC Nurpur, H.P. 37. 36. PW-15 Govind Singh has stated that two parcels intact with seal ‘M’ alongwith sample seal and one envelope were handed over to him by MO, CHC Nurpur, H.P. 37. PW-16 Shashi Pal stated that he was posted at Police Post, Thakurdwara and on 04.4.2011 at about 12:40 pm, Gram panchayat Pardhan, Kewal Singh, resident of village Paral, telephonically informed that Vijay Kumar (now deceased) was admitted in the hospital Hazipur in an injured condition. He stated that Pradhan also told that accused Gurmel and Subhash Chand had given beatings to Vijay Kumar. In the cross- examination, PW16 has stated that except the names of the aforesaid two persons no complete identification was given. 38. PW-17 H.C Shashi Pal stated that he was posted as MHC on temporary basis from 04.4.2011 and 06.4.2011. ASI Ashwani Kumar deposited the case property with him. 39. PW-19 Inspector Joginder Singh, Incharge, State CID stated that FIR Ext. PW18/C was registered by him on the basis of statement of Ajit Singh recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. 40. The report of FSL, has been placed on record as Ext.PA, which concludes that human blood of group ‘B’ was detected on exhibit-5 (blood sample, Vijay Kumar), exhibit- 6a(shirt, Vijay Kumar), exhibit-6b (pants, Vijay Kumar), exhibit 7b(T-shirt, Vijay Kumar), exhibit-9 (blood stained stone), exhibit-10 (pants, Gurmel Singh ) and exhibit 11b (shawl, Subhash Chand). 41. Similarly, Ext. PX is the report of FSL, which shows that the contents of alcohol in the blood of deceased were 276.79 mg%. Similarly alcohol in the blood of Gurmel Singh was 88.50 mg%. Alcohol in the urine of Gurmel was 86.25 mg%. Alcohol in the blood of Subhash was 51.49% mg and alcohol in the urine of Subhash Chand was 60.38 mg%. 42. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal of the respondents/accused. 43. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that scope of interference in the case of appeal of acquittal is very limited and the prosecution has to establish that judgment in question suffers from perversity. 44. The present appeal shall be decided on the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of appeal against acquittal. 45. In case Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025)5 Supreme Court Cases 433 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 23. 44. The present appeal shall be decided on the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of appeal against acquittal. 45. In case Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025)5 Supreme Court Cases 433 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- 23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka6, 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:(SCC pp.163-64, para 38-41) “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 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 case7, SCC p.432,para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 puts no limitation restriction on condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds” “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds” “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.’ ” 40. Further, in 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. 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. 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.” 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.” 24. 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. 46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2119/2010, titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram, decided on 28.7.2022, has held as under:- “The scope of intereference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the findings of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the findings of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 47. In the case of Ballu @ Bal Ram @ Balmukund and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) SCALE 513 the Hon’ble Court has held as under:- 9. Apart from that, it is to be noted that the present case is a case of reversal of acquittal. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warrated Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments which the High Court itself has reproduced in the impugned judgment, which are as reproduced below: “13.In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P.(2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that:- "In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded." 14. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. Similar, In case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that:- "No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) Dy. 23115/2025, titled as Brijesh Singh vs. State of U.P. decided on 18.06.2025, has held as under: “Law is well settled that intereference in an appeal against acquittal should be made only if the view taken by the Courts below is perverse or if no two views are possible and the only logical conclusion from the evidence is to record the guilt of the accused. In the present case, we do not find any view other that that taken by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court acquitting the respondents of the charges is permissible.” 48. Now adverting to the factual matrix of the case. From the perusal of the statements/evidence as led by the prosecution witnesses, the, story as projected by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. PW-1,Narinder Singh the real brother of deceased Vijay Kumar. According to him, they were sleeping in the room and his father came to the house at 03.15 a.m. and told that Vijay Kumar was being beaten by accused persons Gurmel and Subhash Chand. He stated that thereafter, all of them, went to the place of occurrence and saw that Vijay Kumar was lying in an injured condition on the path and had sustained injuries on his head. When Vijay Kumar was asked about the incident, he disclosed that he was beaten up by Gurmel and Subhash Chand . He stated that Vijay Kumar further told him that accused Gurmel called him from Malkiat’s house and Subhash Chand was also standing out side the house and accused persons pushed his brother against pucca brick path again and again. 49. He stated that Vijay Kumar further told him that accused Gurmel called him from Malkiat’s house and Subhash Chand was also standing out side the house and accused persons pushed his brother against pucca brick path again and again. 49. This statement of PW-1 is contrary to the FIR Ext.PW18/C, which has been got registered by father of the deceased Ajit Singh, wherein he alleged that his son (deceased) had gone to attend ‘Jagrata’ and when he did not come back, then he started to enquire about his son at 03:00 a.m. in the morning and when he reached at some distance, he noticed some persons were giving beatings to his son and when he reached the spot he saw that certain persons were beating his son in order to kill him. When he raised hue and cry, then all assailants ran away. He stated that he recognized Gurmel Singh @ Gelu and Subhash Chand as residents of Paral. Sh. Ajit Singh stated that beatings were given to his son in order to kill him. Therefore, the statement of PW-1, the real brother of the deceased, is contrary to the statement made by his father under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. 50. The brother, PW-1, stated that he along with his father and Buai went to the place of occurrence and they saw that Vijay Kumar was crying and he had sustained injuries on account of the beating given by the accused /respondents, whereas in the FIR, father of the deceased has stated contrary, which disbelieves the story of the prosecution. Both father and brother had made contrary statements, which do not inspire confidence in the case of the prosecution as has been projected. 51. PW-2 Dr. Kapil Sharma has testified that the deceased died due to head injuries leading to massive inracranial haemorrhage, which led to shock and death. He admitted that on account of injuries the deceased was not in a position to make a statement. He also admitted presence of alcohol measuring 276.79 mg% affects the body. He admitted that alcohol of such quantity can further hamper the speech and that after suffering as mentioned in postmortem report and the alcohol level as mentioned above, he may not make a coherent speech. 52. To the similar extent is the statement of PW-3 Dr. He also admitted presence of alcohol measuring 276.79 mg% affects the body. He admitted that alcohol of such quantity can further hamper the speech and that after suffering as mentioned in postmortem report and the alcohol level as mentioned above, he may not make a coherent speech. 52. To the similar extent is the statement of PW-3 Dr. Sukhdev Raj who stated that patient was smelling of alcohol and on account of intoxication such person may talk irrelevant speech which does not carry any sense. 53. The entire prosecution story, which has been projected in the final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, points out that deceased Vijay Kumar before becoming unconscious had told his father Ajit Singh, his brothers Raman and Narender and mother Champa and Fufa Ram Asra that for a sum of Rs. 1000/,- Gurmel @ Gelu and Subhash Chand had given severe beatings to him by banging his head over the bricks on the road. On the said declaration the present case has been registered against the respondents. However, PW2 and PW-3, have categorically stated in their cross-examinations that if a person sustained such type of head injuries leading to massive intracranial haemorrhage, then he may not be able to make statement. They admitted that vision, speech and hearing also affect dependending upon level of alcohol. Further, it is admitted fact that there was presence of alcohol measuring 276.79 mg% in the body of the deceased and in that situation the speech can become slurred and double vision can also occurr. Such type of injury can be occurred due to hard surface. 54. To the similar extent Dr. Vijay Kumar Scientific Officer has stated that in the viscera of Vijay Kumar no poison could be detected in the blood sample of deceased Gurmel Singh and Subhash Chand but alcohol was detected, therefore, on account of the observation and the medical opinion given by PW- 2 , PW 3 and PW4, it is improbable that any declaration was made by deceased either to PW-1 or his father-Ajit Singh. The prosecution has failed to link and complete the chain of sequence in order to bring home the guilt of the respondent. 55. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and Sh. Ajit Singh who is the complainant in the present case. 56. PW-1 has stated that Pradhan and Panch were also called by his parents. The prosecution has failed to link and complete the chain of sequence in order to bring home the guilt of the respondent. 55. There are material contradictions in the statement of PW-1 and Sh. Ajit Singh who is the complainant in the present case. 56. PW-1 has stated that Pradhan and Panch were also called by his parents. The Pradhan namely Sh. Kewel Krishan (PW-8) and Onkar Singh (PW-9) has stated that nothing has happened in their presence and they do not know anything about the case. Similarly, The Panch, Hazara Singh has entered the witness box as PW-10. He has also stated that he does not know anything about the case. PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 were declared hostile by the prosecution and were cross examined at length but nothing was extracted from their testimonies which could even point out the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to connect the respondents qua the said offences. 57. Apart from the statement of Pradhan and the Panch, in case the statement of PW-7 Ram Asra is seen, he portrayed a different story by stating that in the mid night about 03.00a.m. due to noise ‘hai hai’ he was woken up by his brother in law Ajit Singh and he asked him to accompany to the spot. He stated that thereafter he accompanied him to the spot and saw that Vijay Kumar was lying on the earth. He stated that he was beaten by Subhash Kumar and Gurmel. 58. The statement of PW-7 is contrary to the statement of PW-1 and the complainant Sh. Ajit Singh. He stated that one of the accused is son of Dhilu and he did not know the name of the father of the other accused. He stated that he did not recognize the accused persons because occurrence took place in the night. This witness is real brother-in-law of Ajit Singh, who was the father of the deceased. In his statement he has failed to identify the accused/respondents and it creates doubt about the identity of the respondents. 59. It has come in the statement of PW-18 that he recorded the statements of about 10-15 persons who were members of the Jagrata. PW18 admitted that he did not associate any of such persons whose names were recorded by him on 5th, 6th and 7th April. 54. 59. It has come in the statement of PW-18 that he recorded the statements of about 10-15 persons who were members of the Jagrata. PW18 admitted that he did not associate any of such persons whose names were recorded by him on 5th, 6th and 7th April. 54. Admittedly, there was a ‘Jagrata’ in the house of Malquiat Singh and the story of prosecution is that the deceased attended Jagarata and in the said ‘Jagrata’ the respondents/accused after taking him out from the house of Malquiat Singh gave beatings. 60. In a common parlance, number of persons attended Jagarata and PW-18 stated that he recorded the statements of 10- 15 persons who were the members of the Jagarata. However, none of such persons has been examined by the prosecution to the reasons best known to it. Since a number of persons were attending Jagrata, therefore in order to prove its case, the prosecution could have examined the members of such Jagrata in order to prove the guilt of the respondents and in the absence of doing so, adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. 61. PW-13 Rajeev Kumar has stated that on 05.04.2011 Gurmel Singh had produced one ‘pant’ coloured blue jean which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW13/A. He stated that on 04.04.2011 when Gurmel Singh was taken into custody, he was wearing this pant and no blood stain was seen by him at that time. He stated that blood stains were seen thereafter. He further stated that this blood was seen by ASI and not by him and only ASI can say how this blood came on the pant. 62. Statement of PW-15 is contrary to PW-14, who stated that he had noticed the blood stain on the pant on 5.4.2011. The statements of these two witnesses are in conflict and contrary to each other. 63. Report of the FSL Ext. PA has been relied upon by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State by arguing that group ‘B’ whether positive or negative was detected on Ext. P-5 and Ext.6-A, Ext.6B, Ext.7B, Ext.9, Ext.10 and Ext. 11 B, However, no substantive evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution. 63. Report of the FSL Ext. PA has been relied upon by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General appearing for the State by arguing that group ‘B’ whether positive or negative was detected on Ext. P-5 and Ext.6-A, Ext.6B, Ext.7B, Ext.9, Ext.10 and Ext. 11 B, However, no substantive evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution. The blood group of any person can be of group ‘B’ and in the absence of any corroboration and concrete evidence the guilt of the respondents could not be proved, especially, in view of Ext.PX which shows the contents of ethyl alcohol in the blood group of deceased. 64. That learned Court below has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and has rightly passed the judgment. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the judgment. 65. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that in case of acquittal the scope of interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Ld. Trial Court is very limited only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the interference with the acquittal is permissible only when no two reasonable views appear possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused appears possible from the evidence available on record. 66. Therefore, keeping in view the well settled principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents. It is settled law that suspicion, however strong it cannot take place of proof beyond all reasonable doubt and accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how so ever strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It is the primary principle that accused must be and not merely may be proved guilty before a Court can convict the accused. The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused i.e. to say they should not be taken explainable on any of the hyperthesis except that the accused is guilty. It is the primary principle that accused must be and not merely may be proved guilty before a Court can convict the accused. The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused i.e. to say they should not be taken explainable on any of the hyperthesis except that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypotheses except the one to be proved. There must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground or conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. 67. The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in view of the settled principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court, there is no infirmity in the judgment as passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore the present appeal fails and is ordered to be dismissed. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed off. Bail bonds are discharged and the record of the learned trial Court be sent back.