G. B. SINGH, J. This is State appeal against the judgment and order dated 13-1-1982 acquitting Harnam Singh and Nawab Singh for the offences under Sections 307 and 307/34,i. P. C. 2. Harnam Singh, respondent No. 1 is son of Nawab Singh, respondent No. 2. They are residents of Barkhera Police Station, Behta Gokul, district Hardoi. Ashok Kumar Singh injured is also a resident of that village. The case of the prosecution was that the respondents were on inimical terms with Ashok Kumar Singh. On 24-11-1979 at about 5. 30 p. m. while the injured was coming from his field and taking grass to his house, Harnam Singh and Nawab Singh met him on way near the grove of Ahibaran Singh. Nawab Singh was armed with a gun whereas Harnam Singh was carrying lathi. Harnam Singh exhorted Nawab Singh to kill whereupon Nawab Singh fired his gun against Ashok Kumar Singh injured but it misfired. Harnam Singh then started belabouring him with lathi. On the alarm raised, Ahibaran Singh and Unnu who were working in the neighbouring fields rushed and on their intervention he was saved. In the assault the injured received several injuries. 3. Ashok Kumar Singh lodged a written report of the incident on the same day at Police Station Kotwali, Hardoi at 10. 00 p. m. On that report chik report was prepared and entry in the G. D. was made. The papers were then sent to the Police Station Behta Gokul. Ashok Kumar Singh injured was sent to District Hospital, Hardoi for medical examination. There his injuries were examined by Dr. S. N. Singh (K W. 3) on 25-11-1979. He found one incised wound, two contused swellings, six contusions, two abrasions, one abraided contusion and one traumatic swelling on different parts of the body of the injured. On X-ray, fracture of nasal bone under injury No. 1 and fracture of distal ends of 4th matacarpal bone of right hand and fracture of distal ends of 4th and 5th matacarpal bones under injuries found on left hand and right foot. These three injuries were grievous in nature and the other injuries were found simple. According to Dr. S. N. Singh the incised wound was caused by some harp edged weapon as its margins were clean cut and the other injuries were caused by some blunt weapon. X-ray of the injuries was taken by Dr. These three injuries were grievous in nature and the other injuries were found simple. According to Dr. S. N. Singh the incised wound was caused by some harp edged weapon as its margins were clean cut and the other injuries were caused by some blunt weapon. X-ray of the injuries was taken by Dr. N. A. Khan, Radiologist (P. W. 4 ). 4. S. I. Shakil Akhtar (P. W. 5) started investigation of the case on 15-12-1979. He inspected the place of incident, interrogated the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet against the respondents. 5. On behalf of the prosecution Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. 1) and Ahibaran Singh (P. W. 2) were examined as witnesses of the occurrence. 6. The accused-respondents denied that they assaulted Ashok Kumar Singh as alleged and stated their false implication on account of enmity. It had also been suggested by them that Ashok Kumar Singh is a man of loose character and perhaps was assaulted by some unknown persons in that connection. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the evidence of the prosecution and acquitted the accused respondents. The State has, there fore, filed the present appeal. 8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the State that the prosecu tion evidence proved the guilt of the accused respondents beyond doubt and they have been wrongly acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I do not find any force in this arguments. 9. The medical evidence is not consistent with the case of the prosecu tion. The incised wound with clean cut margins could not be caused by a blunt weapon like lathi even on the bony part of the nose. No effort was made by the prosecution at the time of the examination by Dr. S. N. Singh to explain the aforesaid incised wound. This incised wound is more consistent with the suggestion made on behalf of the defence that an effort was made by some persons to cut the nose of the victim on account of his bad character. 10. The first information report was prepared and lodged under suspici ous circumstances. The incident took place within the circle of Police Station Behta Gokul but the first information reports was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Hardoi which is at a distance of about 8 miles from the place of incident. 10. The first information report was prepared and lodged under suspici ous circumstances. The incident took place within the circle of Police Station Behta Gokul but the first information reports was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Hardoi which is at a distance of about 8 miles from the place of incident. The first information report was said to be recorded on the dictation of Ashok Kumar Singh injured by one Ram Tirath Singh at Numaish Chau-raha which is at a distance of about one mile from the house of Ram Tirath Singh. Ram Tirath Singh has not been examined as a witness to explain as to how he happened to be there in late hours of the night. Ahibaran Singh (P. W. 2) stated that he remained along with Ashok Kumar Singh injured from the place of incident till he left Numaish Chauraha for lodging the first infor mation report. He has stated in cross-examination that Ashok Kumar Singh remained unconscious throughout and he came to his senses after about half an hour of his reaching at Numaish Chauraha. He further stated that ha remained with him for about 5 or 6 hours at the Numaish Chauraha and the report was not scribed there. This statement created doubt if the first informa tion report was written at Numaish Chauraha as stated by Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. I) Thus, the origin of the first information report is shrouded in mystery and as such the version disclosed in it cannot be safely relied upon unless proved by some cogent evidence. 11. There are only two witnesses of the incident Ashok Kumar Singh (P. W. 1) is injured himself. It is admitted that he is ill-disposed towards the accused. He can, therefore, falsely implicate them on the basis of mere suspi cion. Ashok Kumar Singh stated before the Investigating Officer that his family members took him to his house from the place of incident after the assault. In cross-examination he denied it and stated that Ahibaran Singh and others took him from the place of incident, Ashok Kumar Singd denied that Ahibaran Singh came with him to Hardoi after the assault. He has been falsified on this point by his own witness Ahibaran Singh (. P. W. 2 ). The admissions made by Ahibaran Singh (P. W. 2) in cross-examination indicate that he belongs to the group of Ashok Kumar Singh. He has been falsified on this point by his own witness Ahibaran Singh (. P. W. 2 ). The admissions made by Ahibaran Singh (P. W. 2) in cross-examination indicate that he belongs to the group of Ashok Kumar Singh. Thus, the oral evidence given in the case was not convincing and since it was not consistent with the medical evidence learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly did not place reliance on it. 12. There was much delay in commencement of the investigation of the case. The incident took place on 24-11-1979 whereas the investigation was started on 15-12-1979. There is no explanation for this delay. The strained relations between the injured on one hand and the accused, on the others, has been mentioned as a motive. Motive simply creates suspicion against the accused. It cannot prove their guilt. Apart from this, enmity is a double edged weapon and if it furnishes motive for the crime on one hand, lends assurance to the suggestion of the defence about false implication due to enmity on the other. 13. Thus, the case of the prosecution was not proved by convincing evidence against the accused. 14. It may also be mentioned that it is an appeal against acquittal. Learned Government advocate has failed to show that there has been given miscarriage of justice. The view taken by the trial Court appears reasonable and where the view of the lower Court cannot be said to be unreasonable, interference in appeal against acquittal is not made. In view of this principle also, the judgment of the trial Court does not deserve any interference. 15. The appeal is dismissed. The respondents need not surrender. Appeal dismissed. .