JUDGMENT 1. - The State has filed this appeal against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Hanumangarh dated 31-8-78 by which the accused-respondents Munshi Ram and Mukhtiyar Singh were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 302, I. P. C. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that deceased-victim Indraj s/o Jaimal was working in his field situate in Rohi Mauja Chelasani district Ganganagat at about 10.00 or 11.00 A. M, on 25-8-(954. The accused went to that field and remained standing at some distance from Indraj. Accused Munshi Ram had a gut with him while accused Mukhtiyar Singh had a sword in his hand. Accused Munshi Ram fired a -.hot with his gun at Indraj which hit him on the back on left lumber-region. Indraj fell down. Thereafter the other accused Mukhtiyar Singh went to him and inflicted a number of blows with his sword. PW 3 Arjun and PW.4 Kheta, win were ploughing their field had witnessed the occurrence. When both the accused persons went away, these two witnesses went to Indraj and found him lying inti pool of blood. Indraj did not survive and passed away after some time. PW 3 Arjun went to PW 2 German and apprised him of the incident. PW 2 German thereupon went to Police Station, Nohar and verbally lodged report Ex. P 2 of the occurrence at about 8. 15 P, M. on 25-3-1964. The police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. The Station House Officer arrived at the spot and prepared the inquest of the victim's dead body. The post mortem examination of the victim's dead body, was conducted at about 10.20 A. M. on 26-8-64 at the spot by PW 1 Dr. S. N, Verma, the then Medical Officer In charge. Government Dispensary, Nohar. The post mortem examination report prepared by him is Ex. P I. As many as 7 incised wounds and one gun-shot wound were .found on the victim's dead body. The gut shot wounds were as follows: (1) gun shot wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left lumber region- wound (f entrance. (2) gun shot wound 11/2" in diameter on left side of epigistim in mid clavicular line on 9th rib. Both these gun shot wounds were the result of single shot. The gut shot wounds were as follows: (1) gun shot wound 1/2" x 1/4" on the left lumber region- wound (f entrance. (2) gun shot wound 11/2" in diameter on left side of epigistim in mid clavicular line on 9th rib. Both these gun shot wounds were the result of single shot. The accused persons were found absconding during the investigation and standing warrants arrest were issued against them to secure their presence. They remained abscond for a pretty long time and were arrested in 1976. The police there after submitted challan against them in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Nohar, why committed the case, for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumagarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under section the IPC against each of the accused-respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and faced the trial. Both of them contended in the Court below that they were not til persons who were named as the miscreants in the First Information Report. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and filed some documents. In defence the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Addition Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the charge to the accused respondents. He advanced a number of reasons which throw consider able doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story. The accused- respondents were consequently acquitted of the offence they were charged-with. Aggrieved against the verdict of the acquittal, the State has taken this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and M/s Bhagwati Prasad and Bhagwan Adwani, learned counsels for the accused respondents under the Legal Aid Scheme. We have also carefully gone through the record on the judgment of the Court below. 4. It was vehemently contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are two eye witnesses of the occurrence viz., PW 3 Arjun and PW 4 Kheta. Both of them have stated that the accused persons had committed the murder of deceased-victim Indraj. It was argued that according to these two eye witnesses, accused Munshi Ram had a gun while accused Mukhtiyar Singh had a sword with him. Both the accused persons came together. Accused Munshi Ram fired a shot at Indraj which hit him on his left lumber region. Indraj fell down. It was argued that according to these two eye witnesses, accused Munshi Ram had a gun while accused Mukhtiyar Singh had a sword with him. Both the accused persons came together. Accused Munshi Ram fired a shot at Indraj which hit him on his left lumber region. Indraj fell down. Thereafter accused Mukhtiyar Singh went to him and struck a number of blows with the sword. It was argued that despite cross examination, the evidence of these two eye witnesses could not be successfully challenged or shaken. The learned Judge of the Court b:low took cursory view of the entire matter and acquitted the accused respondents on surmises and conjectures. In reply, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents took us through the entire evidence and submitted that the approach of the court below was perfectly correct and justified. It was argued that the very identity of the accused-respondents as the murderers of the deceased-victim has not been established beyond doubt. It was argued that the name of accused Munshi Ram together with his father's name was mentioned in the First Information Report but the warrant of arrest .was issued in the name of`Munshi`Ram s/o Asha ." It was argued that the name of Mukhtiyar Singh has been mentioned in the FIR but his father's name has not been given in it. It was further urged that the name of the father of accused Mukhtiyar Singh has been shown as "Moti Singh," whereas when Mukhtiyar Singh was arrested his father's name has been mentioned as "Ishwer singh". The accused who was tried has been named as accused Mukhtiyar Singh s/o Ishwer Singh. It was argued that in these circumstances the very identity of the accused-respondent is highly doubtful. It was also argued by Shri Sharma that Mukhtiyar Singh, who has been challenged does not bear that name. The name of this accused who has been said to be Mukhtiyar Singh is Kalu, 5. We have taken the respective contentions into consideration. 6. The pertinent question before us is whether the testimony of PW 3 Arjun and PW 4 Kheta Ram is sufficient to seek the conviction of the accused-respondents. We may point out that this is an appeal against the acquittal and a verdict of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with unless the approach of the trial court is found perverse and wholly unsustainable. We may point out that this is an appeal against the acquittal and a verdict of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with unless the approach of the trial court is found perverse and wholly unsustainable. It is not sufficient to set aside an acquittal on the ground that a different view on the evidence can be taken by a court of appeal other than taken by the trial Court. 7. It is true that both these witnesses have claimed to have seen the occurrence but there are major circumstances which induce us that they had not seen the occurrence and their claim to have seen the occurrence is not true. 8. The first infirmity in the testimony of these witnesses, is the wound caused by gun shot. According to these witnesses, accused Munshi Ram was standing at some height when he fired the shot at the deceased-victim who was standing at a lower level. Had this been true, the nature of the wound would be upwards to down wards. But this is not a case here in this case. Here the wound is downward and upward which is not possible in this manner alleged by these two eye witnesses. That shows that both these witnesses had not seen the occurrence, at least to that part reporting to the gun shot wounds. This makes the prosecution story highly suspicious. If they can introduce a false piece of evidence, they can also introduce so many false elements to give true colour to the occurrence. 9. The next infirmity is that in the First Information Report it is alleged that the deceased-victim made a dying declaration before these two eye witnesses. But both these eye witnesses have not stated anything about the dying declaration during trial. On the contrary, both of them have stated that the deceased-victim did not utter a single word to him. That leads us to the inference that the First Information Repost is not an Innocent piece of evidence but there is very likelihood of I fabrication in it. The First information Report Ex P. 2 was drawn up at about 8.15 1 P.M. on 25.8.64 but it reached the Court on 23.9.64. There is no explanation to explain this inordinate delay. The First information Report Ex P. 2 was drawn up at about 8.15 1 P.M. on 25.8.64 but it reached the Court on 23.9.64. There is no explanation to explain this inordinate delay. If the F.l.R. reached the Court on 23 9.64, it cannot be said to be a genuine piece of document which was immediately drawn up when the matter was reported to the police. That also casts a serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. 10. It is alleged that both the accused-respondents used to work as labourers with Ganesha Ram. But Ganesha Ram has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution in the case. Since the identity of the accused-appellants has been a matter of great dispute between the parties we thought it proper to go through the diary to take aid from it. In it, we find that father's name of accused Mukhtiyar Singh lias been shown as Moti Singh. The arrest made by the police is that of Mukhtiyar Singh s/o Ishwersingh. Even in the standing arrest warrant of accused Munshi Ram. the name of his father has been shown as Asha, whereas the person arrested is accused Munshi Ram s/o Soma. That again throws considerable doubt about the identity of the real culprits. It was in these circumstances that Ganesha Ram was not examined by the prosecution as their witness. 11. We then do not find any motive behind the commission of murder. It is alleged that both these accused persons committed the theft at the house of victim's father Patrol. But this is only an allegation and there is no evidence in proof of it. Jaimal has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution. The motive, therefore, does not stand proved. 12. We are quite conscious that motive is not an essential ingredient. But when the prosecution evidence is doubtful, the question of motive becomes most material in assessing and appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 13. The learned Sessions Judge has advanced a number of reasons for acquitting the accused persons. Having perused his judgment, we are unable to take a view different from him. 14. The reasons advanced by him are cogent and convincing and no interference is called for. 15. In the result, we find no force in this appeal of the State and it is I hereby dismissed. Having perused his judgment, we are unable to take a view different from him. 14. The reasons advanced by him are cogent and convincing and no interference is called for. 15. In the result, we find no force in this appeal of the State and it is I hereby dismissed. Accusedrespondent Mukhtiyar Singh is in custody. He shall be immediately setforth at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Accused Munshi Ram is already yon bail and his bail-bonds shall stand cancelled.State appeal dismissed - accused respondents acquitted. *******