Judgment G.B. Singh, J. 1. THIS is an appeal by the State Government under section 378 Cr. P.C. against the judgment and order dated 1-4-1982 of the Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli acquitting the accused-respondents for the charge under sections 302/34 IPC. 2. THE case of the prosecution was that Mata Badal was Pradhan of village Kushmaura. He allotted some Gaon Samaj land to Ram Avadh Murai. Gaya Prasad, Ram Jeet and Ramesh Kumar accused-respondents wanted to take that land from the Pradhan. Having remained unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain that Gaon Samaj land from him, they tried to occupy it forcibly against which Mata Badal assisted Ram Avadh Murai. Due to these facts Gaya Prasad, Ram Jeet and Ramesh Kumar were harbouring ill-will against Mata Badal. On 1-10-1981 at about 7 a. m. Mata Badal was going to see his fields which are towards north of the abadi of his village at a distance of about one mile. When he reached near the field of Shahzad which is at a distance of about three or four furlongs towards north from the abadi of that village, he sat in the field of Smt. Kalawati for easing himself. At that time Gaya Prasad and Ram Jeet, who were armed with lathis, and Ramesh Kumar armed with a kanta came from south and challenged Mata Badal and declared that they would teach him a lesson for executing the patta. Mata Badal in order to save himself ran towards east and the three accused chased and surrounded him in the field of Shahzad. They assaulted him with lathis and kanta due to which he received injuries and fell down. Ram Chandra Misra, brother of Mata Badal, who was also easing himself in a neighbouring field, raised alarm. Shahzad, Ram Sewak, Sushil Kumar and Chandra Bhushan also arrived and challenged the assailants whereupon they ran away towards west. On account of the injuries received Mata Badal died on the spot. Ram Chandra Misra lodged the First Information Report at police station Mahrajganj on the same day at 10.05 a. m. Police station Mahrajganj is at a distance of about 5 kms. from the place of incident. On the report a case under section 302 IPC was registered. Sri S. S. Shukla, Station Officer, investigated the case. He went to the place of incident. He inspected the place of incident and prepared the site-plan. from the place of incident. On the report a case under section 302 IPC was registered. Sri S. S. Shukla, Station Officer, investigated the case. He went to the place of incident. He inspected the place of incident and prepared the site-plan. He also prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body of Mata Badal was held on 2-10-1981 at 3 p. m. at mortuary Rae Bareli by Dr. R. K. Gupta PW 2. On external examination he found the following ante-mortem injuries :- 1. Lacerated wound left palm 4 cm. x 1 cm. bone deep ; underlying bone broken. 2. Lacerated wound right side of scalp 2 cm. x 1.5 cm. x bone deep 4 cm. above right ear ; underlying bone broken. 3. Lacerated wound right side of scalp 1.6 cm. x 3 cm. x bone deep, 3 cm. from injury no. 2 ; underlying bone broken in multiple pieces. 4. Incised wound 8 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep, 4 cm. behind right ear, 5. Contusion right shoulder outer aspect 8 cm. x 2.5 cm. 6. Contusion right side of back 10 cm. x 6 cm. behind injury no. 5. 7. Contusion left side of back 12 cm. x 8 cm., 8 cm. below left shoulder. Bleeding was present from both ears and nose. 3. ON internal examination the doctor found that the skull was broken in multiple pieces. Occipital, parietal and temporal bones were also fractured. Roof of the upper eye-ball was also fractured. Membranes were teared off at multiple places. The brain was lacerated in right-central and left-Central hemisphere underlying injuries nos.2, 3 and 4 and haemotoma was present in left temporal region. According to him, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased. 4. THE Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted charge- sheet against the accused-respondents. On behalf of the prosecution six witnesses were examined. Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 and Shahzad PW 3 are eye-witnesses of the incident. Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta PW 2 conducted the post-mortem examination. Constable Surya Pal Singh PW 4 brought the dead body from the place of incident to the Mortuary, Rae Bareli, for the post-mortem examination. Constable Ram Naresh Misra PW 5 took sealed bundles to Agra for chemical examination. Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta PW 2 conducted the post-mortem examination. Constable Surya Pal Singh PW 4 brought the dead body from the place of incident to the Mortuary, Rae Bareli, for the post-mortem examination. Constable Ram Naresh Misra PW 5 took sealed bundles to Agra for chemical examination. S. O. Shiva Sewab Shukla PW 6 investigated the case. The accused persons denied that they committed murder of Mata Badal. Their case was that they were falsely implicated in the case on account of enmity. 5. THE learned Sessions Judge held that Mata Badal received injuries from lathi and kanta and died as a result of the same. He further held that Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 and Shahzad PW 3 could go to see their fields and their statements are worthy of reliance. In the last para of the judgment he, however, held that the presence of Ram Chandra PW 1 and Shahzad PW 3 at the time of the incident becomes dobutful as all the four chambers of the heart of the deceased were found empty and it would have taken not less than half an hour and thus Mata Badal Misra would have died after half on hour of the incident whereas these witnesses state that Mata Badal died in a minute or so when they reached near him. On the basis of this reasoning he held that the charge against the accused does not appear established. He, therefore, acquitted the accused. Feeling dissatisfied with that judgment, the State Government has preferred the present appeal. 6. WE heard learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and have perused the record carefully. It was argued by the learned counsel for the State that the charge for the offence of murder was proved against the accused-respondents by the testimony of the two eye-witnesses, prompt FIR and the consistent medical evidence and the conclusion reached by the lower court is palpably wrong and not based on sound reasoning resulting in grave injustice. The learned counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, argued that even if the reasons given by the trial court are not very sound, the conclusion drawn by him cannot be said to be perverse or patently absurd because the testimony of the two eyewitnesses is not reliable and suffers from infirmities. The learned counsel for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, argued that even if the reasons given by the trial court are not very sound, the conclusion drawn by him cannot be said to be perverse or patently absurd because the testimony of the two eyewitnesses is not reliable and suffers from infirmities. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that re-appraisal of evidence can be made by the appellate court but it will not interfere with the finding of the court below even if two views are possible and when there are circumstances indicating that the finding arrived at by the trial court is reasonable. There is much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and we find it difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the State- appellant. 7. WITH regard to power of the High Court about interference in the appeal against acquittal the Privy Council observed in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 as under :- ".........the High Court should and will always give proper weight,and consideration to such matters as (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses. (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses........." Adverting to the facts of the case, the Privy Council proceeded to state. ".........They have no reason to think that the High Court failed to take all proper matters into consideration in arriving at their conclusions of fact." 8. ".........They have no reason to think that the High Court failed to take all proper matters into consideration in arriving at their conclusions of fact." 8. IN Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 at pages 719 and 720 the following observations appear relevant in this connection :- "The foregoing discussion yields the following results ; (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded ; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup's case, 61 Ind App 398 : AIR 1934 PC 22/ (2) afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal ; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments to this Court, such as, (i) " substantial and compelling reasons ", (ii) " good and sufficiently cogent reasons ", and (iii) " strong reasons ", are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion ; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified." Similarly in Sethu Madhavan Nair v. State of Kerala, AIR 1974 SC 1857 the Supreme Court stated the law as given below : - ".........The High Court has lull power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code, but in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusion upon fact the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as – (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses ; (2) the presumption of innocense in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial ; (3) the right of the accused of the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt ; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. The High court should also take into account the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal and must express its reason in the judgment which lead it to hold that the a quittal is not justified. Further, if two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial Court, It would follow as a corollary from that that if the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused is not unreasonable, the occasions for the reversal of that view would not arise." IN Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1566 it has been held that that where the circumstances disclose that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge was also reasonably possible, the High Court should not reverse the order of acquittal by taking a different view of the evidence. Keeping in view the above principles, the evidence adduced in the case is taken up to see if the judgment of acquittal passed in the case is unreasonable and should be interfered with in this appeal. 9. THE prosecution examined Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 and Shahzad PW 3 as eye-witnesses of the incident. They stated that the three accused- respondents assaulted and committed the murder of Mata Badal. Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 is the real brother of the deceased whereas Shahzad PW 3 is his neighbour. 9. THE prosecution examined Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 and Shahzad PW 3 as eye-witnesses of the incident. They stated that the three accused- respondents assaulted and committed the murder of Mata Badal. Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 is the real brother of the deceased whereas Shahzad PW 3 is his neighbour. It has come in the statement of Shahzad PW 3 that Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 is a member of the Executive Committee of a High School in which his son is a teacher. It was also admitted by him that Mata Badal allotted some land of Gaon Samaj to him. It is, therefore, clear that none of them is an independent witness. Shahzad PW 3 stated that when he and other witnesses reached near Mata badal, he was lying on the ground overturned with his face towards the ground. In the inquest report Ext. Ka-8 also it has been mentioned that the dead body was lying overturned (aundha halet mein). THE Station Officer Shiva Sewak PW 6 stated that at the time of the local inspection there was some water in the field. Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that the ground where Mata Badal fell down was wet (gila). On the basis of these statements it was argued by the learned counsel for the accused-respondents that in case the witnesses had arrived immediately after the assault and Mata Badal had not died by that time, they would have made some attempt to lift his body from that wet place and, in any case, they would not have left Mata Badal in the position in which he was lying overturned on the wet ground. THEre is much substance in this argument. Both Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 and Shahzad PW 3 denied that they made any attempt to change the position of Mata Badal after their arrival. It was possible only when they had not actually seen the assault and having reached the place of incident some time after the death thought it better not to disturb the dead body and its position in which it was lying till the police arrived. THE conduct of these witnesses leaving Mata Badal lying overturned in a wet field specially when he had not died at the time of their arrival appears unnatural and makes their presence at the time of the incident doubtful. THE conduct of these witnesses leaving Mata Badal lying overturned in a wet field specially when he had not died at the time of their arrival appears unnatural and makes their presence at the time of the incident doubtful. THEre is a suggestion on behalf of the accused that the murder of Mata Badal was committed during the darkness of the night. THEre is the statement of Dr. Ram Kumar Gupta PW 2, who conducted the post-mortem examination, that there could be difference of 2 or 3 hours either way in the alleged time of the death of Mata Badal, i.e. 7 a. m. Thus the possibility of commission of the murder during dark hours of the night some time before dawn cannot be ruled out. THEse tacts coupled with the aforesaid conduct of PW 1 Ram Chandra Misra and PW 3 Shahzad support the defence theory that the witnesses had not seen the occurrence. 10. THERE is no dispute that Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 has no field near the place of incident. In order to show his presence at the time of the incident he simply states that he was going along with Mata Badal to see their field. It has been further stated by him that on the relevant date he left his house all alone at 5.30 or 5.45 a. m. to see his fields and when Mata Badal met him in a chak at about 6 a. m. and asked him to accompany, he proceeded with Mata Badal to see his chak which is towards north at a distance of about one mile from the abadi of the village. He further added that when Mata Badal started easing himself in the field of Smt.Kalawati, he also eased himself in the field of Babu Lodh in which Sanai crop was standing. It is significant to note that in the field of Smt. Kalawati the Investigating Officer found faeces where Mata Badal deceased is said to have eased himself and has shown it in the site-plan, but no such faeces was found and shown in the site-plan in the field of Babu Lodh. It creates doubt about the fact that Rum Chandra Misra PW 1 was going along with Mata Badal. It is not mentioned in the FIR that he met Mata Badal on way and was going along with him at his request. It creates doubt about the fact that Rum Chandra Misra PW 1 was going along with Mata Badal. It is not mentioned in the FIR that he met Mata Badal on way and was going along with him at his request. This improvement appears to have been made so that his going with Mata Badal from the house to see the same chak may not be taken unnatural and incredible. It may be added that Ram Chandra Misra PW 1, according to his own statement, by coincidence happened to be at the place of incident. He is, therefore, a chance witness. If such a witness happens to be a relative of the victim, his being a chance witness is viewed with suspicion. All these facts indicate that the testimony of Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 cannot be safely relied upon. Shahzad PW 3 does not state that he was working in his field at the relevant time. His statement is to the effect that he was going to see his field. He also reached the place of incident at the time of occurrence by chance because he does not state that he was working in his field at that time. It has been mentioned above that he is a neighbour and on friendly terms with the victim and his family members. His evidence also, therefore, requires cautious and close scrutiny. There is a village path-way which runs north-south towards east of the place of incident and it has been shown in the site-plan prepared by the Investigating Officer. It is alleged that the accused declared and ran from this path-way towards the victim. Shahzad PW 3 was also going to his chak on the same village path-way and he admits that Ram Sewak (not examined) met him on this way. In cross-examination he stated that he did not see any one on the village path-way immediately before the occurrence. If the statement of Shahzad PW 3 that he was going on that path-way to see his field is correct, he would have seen the accused on that village path-way otherwise he could not reach to wards east of his chak in time to witness the incident. According to the statement of Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 and the site-plan Ex. According to the statement of Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 and the site-plan Ex. Ka-9, Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 saw the incident from the field of Babu Lodh and that place has been shown by letter 'C in the site-plan. Shahzad PW 3 states that Ram Chandra Misra was standing in his paddy field at the time of the incident. All these facts indicate that the presence of Shahzad PW 3 also at the time of incident cannot be safely believed. 11. ACCORDING to the prosecution case, the accused committed the murder of Mata Badal because he was supporting Ram Avadh Morai against the accused in a litigation about a piece of Gaon Samaj land which he allotted to Ram Avadh Morai before the incident. This circumstance has been mentioned as a motive for the commission of the crime. This circumstance was not put to the accused in their statement under section 313 Cr. P.C.. It has been held in Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujrat. AIR 1979 SC 1566 that if a circumstance is not put to the accused in his statement under section 342 (now section 313) Cr. P.C., the prosecution cannot be permitted to rely on this statement in order to convict the accused particularly after he had been acquitted by the Trial Court. It is, therefore, evident that on the basis of this circumstance suggested as a motive no reliance can be placed in fixing guilt upon the accused- respondents. 12. THERE are some facts relating to FIR which also indicate that much importance cannot be attached to this corroborative evidence also. Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 lodged this report. He states that he scribed this report at the place of incident. His statement is that he sent for paper and pen from the house and scribed the report near the well of Faqira. He further stated that after scribing the report he went to the village to clothe himself and then started for the police station. It may be mentioned here that the village abadi is at a distance of three or four furlongs from the place of the incident. If the paper and pen were not with him and he was not properly clothed, he himself could go to the village and scribe the FIR there and after clothing himself could go to the police station to lodge the report. If the paper and pen were not with him and he was not properly clothed, he himself could go to the village and scribe the FIR there and after clothing himself could go to the police station to lodge the report. The statement of Ram Chandra Misra PW 1 on this point appears not only unnatural but motivated to explain the delay in lodging the FIR. According to the prosecution, the incident took place at about 7 a. m and the FIR was lodged at 10.05 a. m. The police station is at a distance of 5kms. from the place of occurrence. This distance can be covered within an hour even if one goes on foot. These facts indicate that on this evidence also much reliance cannot be placed. The accused stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of strained relations with Ram Chandra Misra and Shahzad. 13. FROM all these facts it is clear that the evidence led by the prosecution was not so convincing as to hold that the conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse or palpably wrong and miscarriage of justice has resulted in the present case. It is true that the reason which he has given for discarding the testimony of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses may not be sound, but in view of the aforesaid circumstances it cannot be said that the finding arrived at by him is unreasonable and the acquittal cannot be supported after reappraisal of the evidence on the record. 14. AFTER having considered all the evidence, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which interference is called for. The appeal has, therefore, no merits and is dismissed. The accused- respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. Appeal dismissed.