the exercise of re-appreciation of the entire evidence without finding any infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court. To buttress this submission, it is submitted that since the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view, it could not have been disturbed by the High Court in appeal. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran5, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka6, Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana7, Kashiram v. State of M.P.8, Labh Singh v. State of Punjab9 and Suratlal v. State of M.P.10 5 (2007) 3 SCC 755 6 (2007) 4 SCC 415 7 (2009) 12 SCC 351 8 (2002) 1 SCC 71 9 (1976) 1 SCC 181 10 (1982) 1 SCC 488 Criminal Appeal No. 1031/2015 and others Page 9 of 2613. It is further submitted that no reliance could be placed upon the testimonies of PW2 and PW4 as their presence at the spot was doubtful. Further, if they were 400 yards away when hue and cry was raised, they could not have seen A-6 taking away PW18 towards the