Inconsistent witness testimony may not provide a sufficient basis for conviction, and the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's decision unless there are compelling circumstances.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with 504 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life the appellants have preferred these appeals.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.08.2002 in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. Amarsing Rupsing,Danaben Amarsing, Lilaben Amarsing and Akbarbhai Amarsing came and started quarrelling with complainant's father-Bhikabhai. Accused No.1-Amarsing Rupsing gave 'Pavda blow' on the head and other accused gave fist blows to the father of the complaiant-Bhikabhai and at that time his elder brother intervened and they were also abused. Subsequently complainant's father succumbed to injuries. Law was set in motion by complainant (PW1).

3. To substantiate the charges against the accused prosecution has examined PW1 complainant-Takhatsingh Bhikhabhai Mahida and PW2 Chhatrasingh Bhikhabhai. When they were examined on 09.08.2004, both PWs 1 and 2 who are the eyewitnesses had fully supported the prosecution case. But when they were recalled and cross-examined and on 19.11.2004, PWs 1 and 2 gave entirely contradictory version and they have changed the version than the one which they had already deposed before the Court on 9.8.2004. The trial court acquitted the appellants by observing that the statement of witnesses (PW1 and PW2) is inconsistent and their evidence is not reliable.

4. On appeal by the State, the High court reversed the order of the acquittal and convicted the appellants under section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

5. By doing so, the High Court suo motu proceeded against PW-1-Takhatsinh Bhikabhai Mahida and PW-2- Chhatrasinh Bhikabhai Mahida for the offences of forgery for giving false evidence on oath and directed them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted the appellants as aforesaid.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when PWs 1 & 2 had changed their earlier version during the cross-examination and when the Trial Court acquitted the accused, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the acquittal.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the High Court upon proper appreciation of evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the other witnesses rightly convicted the appellants and the conviction warrants no interference.

9. PWs 1 and 2 are the only eyewitnesses to the occurrence. As pointed out by the High Court when PWs 1 and 2 were examined-in-chief on 9.8.2004, they have fully supported the prosecution case; when they were recalled on 4.11.2004 and cross examined by the defence both the witnesses turned volte face and changed their version. It is brought on record that in the interregnum period between August, 2004 and November, 2004, the parties have settled the matter and in view of the settlement, PWs 1 and 2 have resiled from their earlier version.

10. In the present appeals, we are not concerned about the correctness of the suo motu proceedings initiated against Pws 1 & 2 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon them. We are only concerned with the correctness of the judgment of the High court reversing the judgment of acquittal.

11. The principles regarding the power of the Appellate Court in an appeal against the acquittal is fairly well settled. When there are two possible reasonable conclusions and the trial court has adopted one such conclusion which is a plausible one, the High Court normally will not disturb the order of acquittal unless there are 'strong circumstances' or 'compelling reasons.'

12. Considering the powers of the appellate court in Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , this Court held as under:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Co