ORDER

This is an appeal under section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 15.3.2018 passed by JMFC, Sardarpur, district Dhar in criminal case No 542/2014 whereby the respondents have been acquitted from the offence under sections 294, 323/34 and 506(II) of PC.

2 According to the prosecution case, on 15.5.2014 at about 1.00 a.m in the night, near Govt. Talab ground, Khamlia, victim Onkarlal was abused by the accused persons In furtherance of common intention, accused Vasudeo hit the victim Onkarlal from backside by axe and also threatened him to kill. On the basis of complaint of Onkarlal, the aforesaid offences were registered. In the court statement of Onkarlal (PW-1), he deposed that when he reached at the spot, accused Vasudeo abused him and during altercation, accused Madanlal came from the backside and caught hold him and Vasudeo hit him with the backside of axe. On his information, Ex.P/1 was recorded. The allegation that accused Madanlal had caught hold him from the backside was not mentioned in the FIR. He further deposed that hearing his shouting, Amrit (PW-6) reached on the spot. However, Amrit has not supported the prosecution case. He further stated that Hemsingh and Jadusingh are eye witness of the incident. They are two independent witnesses. Jadusingh (PW-2) has stated that no incident had taken place. He stated that he had not seen the accused Vasudeo hitting Onkarlal with axe. The same fact was informed to him by tractor driver. According to Onkarlal (PW-1), the tractor-driver was Amrit (PW-6). Amrit has also denied the incident. The other independent witness, Hemsingh (PW-3) has also stated that no incident had taken place. He also stated that accused Vasudeo had not hit Onkarlal with the help of lathi. Thus, both the eye witnesses, Jadusingh (PW-2) and Hemsingh (PW-3) have not supported the prosecution case. They deposed that they have not seen the incident but they had reached on the spot. They saw injury on the head of Onkarlal and Onkarlal had informed them that accused Madanlal had caught hold him and Vasudeo had hit him with the axe The medical examination report of Onkarlal is Ex.P/6. In the sad report, one injury of 3x1 cm. lacerated wound was found on the left side of the head. Dr Jain (PW-5) was examined to prove the medical report. He admitted that the injury sustained by the victim could have been caused on account of fall. The trial court after appreciating the evidence of Onkarlal(PW-<br/>

1) and independent witnesses, Jadusingh (PW-2), Hemsingh (PW-3) and Dr. Jain (PW-5) held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any doubt.

3. It is to note here that in an appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary reported in (2005) 8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the lower Court; it can only be interpreted where the material on record leads to sole inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused. In the case of T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said judgment and by interfering in appeal the judgment of the High Court was set aside restoring the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused In the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan, (008) 1 SCC 258 , the Apex Court has observed that in case two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal only because the another view may be possibly taken.

4. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of M.P., (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the court of law, the court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The relevant paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment of Mahavir Singh (supra) quoted as unde