JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar by which, Makhan Singh and Ajaib Singh respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sec 307, I.P.C. while respondent Baltej Singh was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec 307 read with 34, I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case against the three respondents was as follows. The relation between Makhan Singh respondent and Gurdev Singh injured were inimical and a criminal case was also pending. On 26-2-71), Darshan Singh, Gurdev Singh son of Bichan Singh and Gurdev Singh son of Sindura Singh. Naib Singh and Shyam Singh were coming back from their field after manufacturing Gur In the way, they met son of Makhan Singh respondent who, on them, went ahead of them in a hurried manner. When the aforesaid persons reached near the house of Makhan Singh, they saw Makhan Singh and Ajaib Singh having 12 bore guns with them. At the site of Darshan Singh, Gurdev Singh son of Bachan Singh and Gurdev Singh son of Sindura Singh, Naib Singh and Shyam Singh Bikar Singh cried in a loud tons that the former should be killed. Thereupon, Ajaib Singh respondent fired two shots from his gun which hit Gurdev Singh son of Bachan Singh and Naib Singh. Makhan Singh also fired a shot at Gurdev Singh son of Sindura Singh as a result of which. Gurdev Singh son of Sindura Singh sustained injuries on his body The victims of the assault then ran away from the place of occurrence. A report of this incident was lodged with the police at police station Tibi that very night at about 12:30 a.m. On the basis of the report, the police registered criminal case under Secs. 307, 147, 148. 149 IPC. and took put up usual investigation into the matter. In the course of investigation, the injured persons were sent to medical officer, Hanumangarh Town. Dr. R.C. Verma PW 5 for examination of their injuries. The doctor examined Gurdev Singh son of Sindura Singh, Naib and Gurdev Singh son of Bachan Singh and found the following injuries on their persons,- 1. Gurdev Singh son of Sindura Singh,- 1. Wound of entry 0.15" diameter on the right areola. 2. Round wound of entry 0.15" diameter with edges inverted on right supra orbital region. 2 Naib Singh,- 1. Gurdev Singh son of Sindura Singh,- 1. Wound of entry 0.15" diameter on the right areola. 2. Round wound of entry 0.15" diameter with edges inverted on right supra orbital region. 2 Naib Singh,- 1. Lacerated wound 0.2" in diameter with margins nearly inverted on lateral aspect of left neck. 2. Lacerated wound 0.15" long and 0.1" wide on the edge of the pinna of left ear in its middle. 3. Gurdev Singh son of Bachan Singh.- 1. Lacerated wound 0.2" x 0.15" with margins nearly inverted on anterior aspect of left shoulder region. In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries found on the bodies of the three injured were not. individually or collectively, sufficient to cause death of the injured in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor, no doubt, opined that the injuries were caused by gunshot and were simple in nature. The investigating agency collected other necessary evidence in the case and eventually, filed charge sheet against Makhan Singh and Ajaib Singh under Section 307, I.P.C. while Baltej Singh was challaned under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate held an enquiry, preparatory to commitment, and upon finding a prima facie case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the three aforesaid respondents to the court of Sessions Judge. Sriganganagar wherefrom the raise was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar for trial under Secs. 307 and 307 read with 34, I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge tried the respondents and found them not guilty of the charges framed against them. Accordingly, he acquitted the three respondents of the offences with which they were charged. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has come up in appeal to this Court as stated above. 3. We have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. D.S. Shisodia, Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. P.C. Mathur for the respondents. 4. It has been contended before us by the Public Prosecutor that the trial judge committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents of the offence of attempt to murder, inspite of the fact of the fact, that the prosecution led cogent and convincing evidence in proof of their guilt. P.C. Mathur for the respondents. 4. It has been contended before us by the Public Prosecutor that the trial judge committed a grave error in acquitting the respondents of the offence of attempt to murder, inspite of the fact of the fact, that the prosecution led cogent and convincing evidence in proof of their guilt. It was further urged that the grounds on which the order of acquittal is based are flimsy and not supported by the evidence on record, and therefore, the findings of fact arrived at by the trial judge as to the innocence of the respondents are perverse and unreasonable. Mr. P.C. Mathur. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that interference by this Court with the order of acquittal is justified only when the findings of the trial judge are based on no evidence or ate manifestly perverse or unreasonable or some such glaring defect has crept in the trial which may necessitate a fresh trial. Mr. P.C Mathur further contended that darkness had set in at 7.00 p.m. when the occurrence took place and that in the absence of any source of light, the injured persons and their associate Darshan Singh were not in a position to see the faces of the assailants from a far off distance, that is, 90 yards and so. the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as to the credibility of these witnesses cannot be said to be perverse and unreasonable. Mr. P.C. Mathur further urged that the evidence of the injured and their associate is not free from material contradictions and exaggerations and this fact was taken into consideration by the trial judge in rejecting their testimony as unworthy of credence and so, on this score also, the judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions. 6. At the outset, we may observe that in an appeal from acquittal, the High Court is empowered to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is based and to arrive at its own conclusion whether the finding given by the trial Judge as to the innocence of the accused is, or is not, a reasonable one but in exercising such power, the High Court has to give proper weight and careful consideration to the following matters, - 1. The estimate of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses; 2. The presumption of innocence of the accused being reinforced by the order of acquittal in his favour; 3. The right of the accused to the benefit of a reasonable doubt; 4. The cautiousness on the part of the High Court in the matter of interference with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial judge who had the opportunity and advantage of hearing the witnesses and noting their demeanour. 7. Keeping these well settled principles in our view, we have critically examined the evidence led by the prosecution on the record. Upon close and careful scrutiny of the evidence, we may say that the conclusion reached by the lower court is reasonable on the evidence and there are no cogent, good and sufficient reasons for interference, in the interest of justice, with the judgment of acquittal. 8. The first ground on which the trial judge has acquitted the respondents of the charges under sections 307 and 307 read with 34, I.P.C. is that owning to inadequate light, the victims and their associate could not see the faces of the assailants. It is not disputed before us that the crime was committed after sunset at 7.00 p.m. on 26-2-71. Hence.it is a matter of crucial importance whether any light was prevailing there at that time enabling the victims and the witness to see the faces of the miscreants. The Public Prosecutor contended before us that the sun set in those days at about 6.40 p m. and the occurrence took place at 7:00 p.m. and so existence of twilight in the sky could not be ruled out and in that faint light after sunset, the assailants could easily be recognised by their faces. The above contention put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor has no force because even making allowance for some faint light after sunset in the sky, there was no adequate source of light which could enable the victims and the witness to see the faces of the assailants from a distance of 90 yards It will not be out of place to mention that the trial judge rightly held that the sun had set on that day at about 6:20 p.m. and that the occurrence took place about 40 minutes after sunset. Hence, recognition could not go, in our opinion, upto 90 yards when darkness had set in. Sumer Singh S.H.O. PW. 7 stated in his cross-examination that the distance between the wall of the house of Makhansingh respondent and the place of occurrence was 90 yards. In the site plan also, the distance shown by him is 90 yards. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Sumersingh, especially when it has not been shattered in cross-examination on this point. Hence, the finding of the trial judge that on account of non-existence of adequate source of light, the victims and the witness could not correctly identify the culprits by their faces from a far off distance of 90 yards, cannot be said to be unreasonable one. 9. Another ground on which the order of acquittal is founded is that the four witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove its case are not independent and disinterested witnesses because out of these four persons, Gurdev Singh son of Sindurasingh PW 1, Naibsingh PW 3 and Gurdevsingh son of Bachansingh P.W. 4 were injured and Darshansingh was their associate. Apart from this, the relations between the respondents and the injured persons were highly obtained prior to the occurrence Gurdevsingh son of Sindurasingh stated in his deposition at the trial that the land of Makhansinghs sisters son had been mortgaged to him and so, Makhansingh was annoyed with him on this serve and that about one month prior to the occurrence, Makhansingh, Ajaibsingh and Baltejsingh caused injuries to his brother Hartejsingh about which a criminal case is pending against these three persons. Darshansingh also admitted in his cross-examination that Makhansingh had instituted three-four cases against his father about diminution of water supply by breaking the water-course. In this manner, it is established on the record that there was enmity between the respondents and the injured and Darshansingh prior to the occurrence. The prosecution could not produce any independent witnesses to corroborate the testimonies of the injured and Darshansingh who shared hostility towards the respondents. Apart from this, there are several discrepancies in material particulars in the statements of injured Gurdevsingh son of Sindurasingh, Naib Singh, Gurdevsingh son of Bachansingh and Darshansingh. Gurdevsingh son of Sindurasingh stated in his deposition that on seeing him, Makhansingh fired a shot from his gun which hit him. Apart from this, there are several discrepancies in material particulars in the statements of injured Gurdevsingh son of Sindurasingh, Naib Singh, Gurdevsingh son of Bachansingh and Darshansingh. Gurdevsingh son of Sindurasingh stated in his deposition that on seeing him, Makhansingh fired a shot from his gun which hit him. Naibsingh PW 3 also stated this fact in his examination in-chief but he was confronted with and contradicted by portion C to D of his statement Ex. 4 which he gave before the police and therein, he has stated that Makhansirighs shot had hit Darshansingh. When confronted with the above portion of his statement Ex. D 4, the witness could not afford any reasonable explanation for the referred to above inconsistency. He merely stated that the police might have wrongly recorded this fact in his statement Ex. D 4. It will not be out of place to mention that Darshan Singh received no injury on his person. Likewise, Gurdevsingh son of Bachan Singh was confronted with portions A to B and C to D of his statement Ex. D 5 wherein he stated that the shot hit him at a distance of 20 karams and that Makhansingh had find a shot from the same distance, i e., 20 karams. In his statement at the trial, he on the other hand stated that the shots were fired at him and bis companions from a distance of 40 panwadas, i. e., about 200 feet. Again, Gurdevsingh son of Bachansingh was confronted with and contradicted by portion E to F of his statement Ex. D 5 wherein he admitted that darkness had set in. When confronted with the above portion of his statement, he denied to have made such a statement before the committing magistrate. Gurdevsingh son of Bachansingh was further confronted with and contradicted by portion C to D of his police-statement Ex D 2 wherein he stated that the shot fired by Makhansingh from his gun had hit Darshansingh on his eye, nipple and other parts of the body. This fact is not corroborated by the evidence of Darshansingh and by medical evidence. There is another circumstance which throws considerable doubt on his evidence. This fact is not corroborated by the evidence of Darshansingh and by medical evidence. There is another circumstance which throws considerable doubt on his evidence. The fact is that in his statement at the trial, Gurdevsingh son of Bachansingh deposed that in the way, he and his companions had met Makhansinghs son Rajasingh who, at their sight, immediately started from there on the back of a mare. This fact was narrated by Gurdevsingh and his companions in order to show that the respondent Makhansingh had sent his son to find cut whether the injured persons were coming and to inform him beforehand of their arrival near his house so that he and other respondents might shoot at them from his house. Gurdevsingh son of Bachansingh was confronted with his statement Ex D 2, which he gave before the police and wherein he did not claim to have seen Makhansinghs son Rajasingh in the way. When confronted with his statement Ex. D 2, this witness could not afford any reasonable explanation for omission to state this material fact. Similarly, Darshansingh was confronted with his statement Ex. D 6 wherein he did not state that Rajasingh had met him and his companions in the way Whenconfronted with the above statement, he could not say why this material fact was not mentioned by him in his above statement. Hence, in our opinion, the evidence of interested and inimical witnesses led by the prosecution is not free from infirmities on merits also.The result of the above discussion is that there are no compelling reasons to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the trial judge as to the innocence of the respondents. 10. The State appeal has, therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******