IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1115 of 2011 Jamun Sah, Son of late Mahabir Sah, resident of Village-Aliganj Gangti, P.S. Mojahidpur, District-Bhagalpur……………………..…….Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ghoghan Sah, Son of Late Govind Sah. 3. Mukesh Kumar Sah, Son of Sri Sheetal Sah. 4. Anil Kumar Sah, Son of Sri Ghoghan Sah. 5. Sunil Sah, Son of Sri Ghoghan Sah. 6. Bhum Sah @ Bhuma Sah, Son of Dhorhi Sah. 7. Basuki Sah, Son of Heera Sah. All residents of Mohalla-Kali Asthan, Aliganj Gangti, P.S. Mojahidpur, District- Bhagalpur……………………………………………....Respondents. 2. 29.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Case No. 720 of 2004 by which the learned trial court has acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 7 when initially the case was registered under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that several persons assaulted the victim with fists and slaps, brick bats and Lathi. The only one injury has been found by the doctor, P.W.8. No doubt, the medical evidence is opinionative in nature but when it completely negates the ocular evidence then the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. The F.I.R. has been lodged after two days of occurrence. The occurrence is of 27.09.2003 whereas F.I.R. was lodged on 29.09.2003 and the prosecution has not brought any explanation for delay nor any medical 2 evidence with regard to treatment at Bhagalpur has been brought on record when adjacent to place of occurrence Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Hospital was situated having police out post. This is settled principle that there is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappriciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably culminated in 3 the process. There is no compelling reason to interfere. We do not find any merit in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. U. K. (Shyam Kishore Sharma,J) ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)