JUDGMENT 1. - By his judgment dated February 25, 1976 the learned Additional sessions Judge, Baran, acquitted the accused-respondents Devi Shankar and Babulal of the offences under Sections 307 and 307/34 IPC. Aggrieved against the acquittal of the accused-respondents the State has come up in appeal and challenges the acquittal. 2. At about 9 A.M. on 3.9.74 PW 1 Gopitlal appeared at police station Baran and verbally lodged report Ex.P 1. It was stated therein that the accused Devi Shankar and Babulal accompanied by Cheetar and Kishan came to their house. Accused Devishankar was having gun with him. The miscreants called Gopilal and PW 2 Mathurapuri to come out. It was further stated therein that when Mathurapuri came out, accused Devishankar fired a shot of his gun towards him. The shot hit on the right thigh of Mathurapuri. It was further stated in Ex. P 1 that quarrel had earlier taken place about the driving of the cattle in the enclosure of Gopilal. The police registered a case under Section 307 IPC and proceeded with the investigation. The medical examination of Mathurapuri was conducted by PW 11 Dr. Bansilal on 4-9-74. He found a gun shot would oval in shape 3/4 c.m. x 1/2 c m. just beneath the skin on the lateral aspect of the thigh. He also found a pallet embodied in the thigh. The report issued by the Dr. is Ex- P 9. The accused-respondents were rounded up. When accused Devi Shanker was arrested on 23-12-74, he was having a gun with him, the gun was seized. On the completion of investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused Devishanker and Babulal in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Baran, who in his turn committed the case for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, framed a charge under Section 307 IPC against accused Devishanker and under Section 307/34 IPC against accused Babulal to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no merit in the prosecution case. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and filed some documents. In defence the accused adduced no evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found no merit in the prosecution case. He held that the eye-witnesses PW 1 Gopilal, PW 2 Mathurapuri, PW 3 Babulal, PW 4 Jodhraj Singh and PW 5 Surajmal were not the witnesses of truth and had not narrated the true account of the incident Treating their evidence untrustworthy, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the charges as not proved against the accused-respondents. The accused-respondents were, therefore, acquitted of the offences they were charged with. Aggrieved against the verdict of acquittal, the state has come up in appeal. 3. It may be mentioned before proceeding further that the injured Mathurapuri had filed a revision petition against the judgment of acquittal. His revision petition was dismissed by this Court. 4. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-respondents. We have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. In challenging the acquittal, it was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial court crept into an error in disbelieving the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses Gopilal, Mathurapuri, Babulal Jodhrajsingh and Surajmal, It was argued that all these five witnesses had stated that accused Devishanker fired the shot which hit Mathurapuri on his right thigh. It was argued that there were no good and cogent reasons to distrust the evidence of these five eye-witnesses. It was, on the other hand submitted by Shri Doongarsingh that the story stated during trial is altogether different from that he narrated in the First Information Report Ex. P 1 was lodged by the Eye-witness PW 1 Gopilal. It was argued that in the First Information Report Ex. P 1 the names of eye-witnesses were not disclosed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has critically examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses and held them unreliable, It was further submitted that the acquittal can be set aside only when there are compelling reasons to do so. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as regards the evidence of the five witnesses is not perverse and as such Interference in acquittal should not be lightly made. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. The First Information Report Ex. P 1 was lodged by PW 1 Gopilal. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as regards the evidence of the five witnesses is not perverse and as such Interference in acquittal should not be lightly made. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. The First Information Report Ex. P 1 was lodged by PW 1 Gopilal. He claims to have seen the whole incident. He is the brother of the injured victim Mathurapuri PW 2. The occurrence has alleged to have taken place out of his house and yet curiously enough PW 1 Gopilal has not mentioned the name of any eye-witness in First Information Report Ex. P 1. The FIR was lodged nearly after 12 hours of the occurrence. There was thus sufficient time left with Gopilal, Had he actually seen the incident, it was expected from him to have mentioned the names of the eye-witnesses in FIR, Ex. P 1, specially when it was lodged after 12 hours of the incident. No explanation has been furnished by PW 1 Gopilal for not mentioning the names of the eye-witnesses in Ex. P1. 7. We have carefully gone through the contents of FIR. Ex. P 1 and the statements of the five eye-witnesses recorded during the trial of the case. The incident as described in FIR. Ex. P 1 was given up during trial and altogether a new and improved incident was introduced during trial. The learned Additional Sessions judge has carefully examined this aspect of the matter and, in our opinion rightly held the five eye-witness as thoroughly unreliable and worth of no credence. These eye-witnesses have given altogether a new and improved version during the trial. They have damaged the prosecution story beyond repair. 8. The acquittal is not be lightly interfered with Acquittal can be set aside only when there are compelling and cogent reasons for doing so. In order to set aside the acquittal, what is required is that the view taken by the trial court is wholly sustainable and is such above no court would have taken. That is not the situation here in the instant case before us. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as regards the evidence of the eye-witnesses does not appear to be perverse of manifestly erroneous. No interference is called for. The verdict of acquittal arrived at by the trial court appears to be correct. 9. That is not the situation here in the instant case before us. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as regards the evidence of the eye-witnesses does not appear to be perverse of manifestly erroneous. No interference is called for. The verdict of acquittal arrived at by the trial court appears to be correct. 9. In the result, we decline to interfere and dismiss the appeal.Appeal dismissed. *******