JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1. Heard the learned senior counsel and the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The incident, which is the subject matter of these Appeals, is of 6th March, 1996. There were five accused, who were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the “IPC”). One of them was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 302 of the IPC. The offence alleged was of committing the murder of one Siddhnath Patel.

3. In an appeal preferred by the convicted accused, the High Court passed an order of acquittal, which is challenged by way of these two Appeals before us. Criminal Appeal No.1163/2018 is preferred by the son (Chandrasekhar Patel) of the deceased, who is PW-2, and the other Appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1164/2018) is preferred by the State.

4. Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal preferred by PW-2 has taken us through the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 to PW-5. He has submitted that only possible view was that the prosecution has established that the respondents have committed the offence. We have also heard the submissions of Shri Shreeyash U. Lalit, learned counsel representing the State in support of the order passed in the appeal.

5. When an Appellate Court deals with an appeal against an order of acquittal, it is no doubt true that the Appellate Court has to re-appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. After re- appreciating the evidence on record, the Appellate Court has to examine whether the Court which passed the order of acquittal, on the basis of the same evidence, could have recorded a finding of acquittal. In other words, the Appellate Court has to examine whether the finding recorded by the Court acquitting the accused is a possible finding, which could have been arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. If the answer to this question is that the view taken by the Court which acquitted the accused is a possible view taken on the basis of the evidence on record, only because the Appellate Court is of the opinion that a contrary view is also possible, it cannot interfere with the order of acquittal. The reason is that the presumption of innocence is further strengthened by the acquittal of the accused.

6. We have independently analyzed and appreciated the evidence of PW-1 to PW-5.

7. After having perused the evidence of PW-1, we find that during the cross-examination of the witness, the Trial Court has disallowed several questions. The presence of PW-1 at the site was attributed to the case made out by him in the examination-in-chief that he had acquired a land on rent in the village. In the cross- examination, he could not tell the khasra number of the land and the precise area of the land as well as the names of the other account-holders. In that context, some questions were attempted to be asked, which were disallowed by the Trial Court. The disallowed questions were whether the field was irrigated or not irrigated; from which place he purchased fertilizers; and whether the money received by selling soyabean and wheat was deposited in his bank account. These questions were asked as the witness in paragraph 24 of the cross-examination, after he expressed his inability to mention khasra number of the land and other particulars, claimed that he was taking the crop of soyabean and wheat. In the cross- examination, he accepted that he was a body builder and he had received championship award at the University on two occasions. In this context, a question was asked during the cross-examination when the second stab injury was caused, whether he attempted to help the deceased. Even this question was disallowed.

8. The claim of the witness was that he saw the incident while he was slowly proceeding on a moped. When the incident happened, he got up from the moped and saw the incident. Therefore, a question was put to him