JUDGMENT H.C. Mittal, J. - State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of respondents Ram Mohan, Naudu and Nanak under Sections 147, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C. and respondents Raj Mohan and Babu Lal under Sections 148, 307/149 and 324/149, I.P.C., by Sri B. B. S. Chaudhary, the then IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur, on 1-7-1978. 2. Rajendra Kumar son of Hari Shanker received knife injuries on 2-8-1974 at about 9.35 p.m. in Mohalia Shanti Nagar within the Police Station, Cantt. at Kanpur, the F.I.R. of which was lodged by his father Hari Shanker at 9.35 p.m. at Police Station Cantt at a distance of 3 furlongs. According to the prosecution, thereafter the injured was sent for medical examination to K. P. M. Hospital, Kanpur where at 9.55 p. m. Dr. Durga Shankar noted the following injuries on his person : (1) Punctured incised would 1" x " x 3" on right side of back " lateral to mid line at level of left vertebra bleeding. (2) Punctured incised would 1" x " x 3" x " lateral to injury No. 1 bleeding. (3) Punctured incised would 1" x " x 4" just at root of posterior axillary fold. (4) Incised would 3" x 1" x " on anterior medial aspect of right thigh 4" above knee joint. 3. Injury No. 4 was simple and rest were kept under observation. Subsequently when the condition of the injured deteriorated his Statement as dying declaration was also recorded by a Magistrate. He, however, survived and, therefore, a charge sheet under Sections 307, 148 and 149, I.P.C. was submitted. 4. At the trial the respondents pleaded not guilty. 5. To prove its case the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses of whom P.W. 1, Dr. R.P. Mishra deposed that he had treated the injured at U.H.M. Hospital, Kanpur, where he was subsequently shifted up to 13-8-1974 and that on X-ray his plura was found slightly out. 6. P.W. 2, Rajendra Kumar, the injured, P. W. 3 Madho Prasad, and P. W. 4, Hari Shanker are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. P. W. 5, Dr. Durga Shanker who had examined the injured at K. P. M. Hospital, Kanpur, has proved the injury report Ext. Ka 2, P. W. 6 A.S.I., Ram Singar was Head Moharrir at Police Station Cantt. and had received the written report and prepared chick report and then registered the case. P. W. 5, Dr. Durga Shanker who had examined the injured at K. P. M. Hospital, Kanpur, has proved the injury report Ext. Ka 2, P. W. 6 A.S.I., Ram Singar was Head Moharrir at Police Station Cantt. and had received the written report and prepared chick report and then registered the case. Lastly, P.W. 7, Station Officer, Karan Singh had conducted the investigation. 7. All the accused respondents denied their presence on the spot and participation in the commission of offence. Babu Lal respondent had taken the plea of alibi and he examined D.W. 1, Ujjal Singh Bhatia and D.W. 2, B.P. Saxena to prove that on the date and at the time of the alleged incident he was present in M.E.S., Kanpur. 8. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence disbelieved the prosecution case and believed the plea of alibi of Babu Lal. He, therefore, acquitted all the accused-respondents. 9. On being aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal. 10. The law is well-settled that appeals from acquittal are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. It is an extraordinary remedy. The appeal by Government should be made judiciously and only in cases where the judgment is so clearly wrong that its maintenance would amount to a serious miscarriage of justice or when a principle is involved or the question is one of great importance or of great public importance. The burden is on the Government to show that the acquittal is wrong and strong and urgent grounds must be made out to justify interference. When there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the High Court will not interfere nor will it interfere merely because upon evidence the lower Court might have come to the conclusion of guilt, unless it is quite clear that the acquittal is wrong. The High Court will not also interfere merely because it might itself, as an original Court, have arrived at a different conclusion. The High Court will not also interfere merely because it might itself, as an original Court, have arrived at a different conclusion. Where an appeal against acquittal turns on the facts it would only succeed if the judgment of acquittal is clearly wrong and involves a miscarriage of justice or when the trial Judge has erred in failing to draw the clear, indubitable and irresistible inference from the facts or when the trial Court's appreciation of evidence is vitiated by failure to take note of a very important fact or whore finding of fact is based on an erroneous rejection of evidence. Thus the High Court will only interfere if it is proved without any doubt not only that the accused is guilty, but that he has been acquitted on unreasonable grounds. 11. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court we find that the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the F.I.R. did not contain the name of Nanak who was also subsequently arrayed as an accused: that though the F.I.R. was shown to have been written at 9.35 p.m. but it could not be so written: that according to the prosecution case the medical examination of the injured was done after the F.I.R. but the record indicated that it had been done not after the F.I.R. that there was no light at the place where, according to the F.I.R., the occurrence had taken place and the prosecution shifted the place of occurrence to show that light was there: that besides the injured both the other witnesses were also highly interested persons: and that Babu Lal respondent also succeeded in proving his presence in M. E. S. where he was employed at the relevant time and date. 12. We have gone through the entire evidence. In the F.I.R. Hari Shanker, P. W. 4, father of the injured, specifically stated that at about 9.15 p.m. on that day he and his son were at the house. Somebody called his son from the door. Thereupon on his asking that somebody was calling him his son Rajendra Kumar went out and immediately accused Ram Mohan, Nandu, Raj Mohan and Babu Lal surrounded him. Ram Mohan exhorted "Sala bhagne na paye. Somebody called his son from the door. Thereupon on his asking that somebody was calling him his son Rajendra Kumar went out and immediately accused Ram Mohan, Nandu, Raj Mohan and Babu Lal surrounded him. Ram Mohan exhorted "Sala bhagne na paye. Pakar lo." Thereupon his son shouted `Bachao-Bachao." He then ran out of the house and saw that Raju (Raj Mohan) and Babu Lal armed with knives, Ram Mohan and Nandu were armed with lathis and that Ram Mohan and Nandu had held his son while Raj Mohan and Babu Lal were inflicting knife injuries. Hari Shanker raised an alarm which attracted witness Madho Prasad, P.W. 3 and other persons. Thereafter Hari Shanker wrote down the F.I.R. at the scene of occurrence then and there and carried his injured son and the F.I.R. to the Police Station and from there he was sent to the Hospital. However, the injury report Ext. Ka 2 clearly contains that lie was not brought by the Police Constable but by Hari Sahanker, father of the injured himself. On record there is evidence of P. W. 6, A.S.I., Ram Singar who was Head Moharrir that after the receipt of the F.I.R. he registered the case in G. D. Copy of which is Ext. Ka 4, and then the injured was sent to Hospital. The G. D. clearly contains that he had been sent to Hospital with Ex. Ka-4 Majroobi Chitthi alongwith Constable Dukhi Ram. Thus in that view of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that the F.I.R. was clearly anti-timed and till the examination of the injured the F.I.R. was not lodged otherwise the injured would have come to the Hospital along with the Majroohi Chitthi and Constable Dukhi Ram and on the Majroohi Chitthi injuries of the injured would have been noted. 13. Dr. Durga Prasad, P.W. 5 has also deposed that he had examined the injured at 9.55 p.m. and prepared injury report in the Medico Legal Register and he made out copy Ext. Ka-2 of the injury report therefrom. That further clearly shows that Majroohi Chitthi was not then handed over to the Doctor. 14. 13. Dr. Durga Prasad, P.W. 5 has also deposed that he had examined the injured at 9.55 p.m. and prepared injury report in the Medico Legal Register and he made out copy Ext. Ka-2 of the injury report therefrom. That further clearly shows that Majroohi Chitthi was not then handed over to the Doctor. 14. That apart, P. W. 2, Rajendra Kumar, the injured, has stated that when he came out of the douse he met Nanak respondent who told him that his friends were waiting at Panwala shop and when he reached there then respondent Ram Mohan Yadav held him and said that he should not be allowed to go. Thereupon Raj Mohan Yadav and Babu Lal with knives in their hands attacked him and when he shouted for help his father and Madho Prasad and others arrived there and on their intervention the assailants had run away. In his cross-examination he specifically stated that before the report was written by his father he had told him after he came out of the house he met Nanak who told him that my friends below the electric poll were waiting. There is no explanation why in spite of that statement of the injured there is no mention of this fact in the F.I.R. That apart, in his statement before the Magistrate, which was recorded as a dying declaration, he had stated that he was beaten at his house and he admitted it. But he further stated that he had told the Magistrate twat Nanak had met him and told him that his friends were calling him below the electric poll and he could not explain as to why the same was not written by the Magistrate. Admittedly there was no light outside the house of the complainant and, therefore, if the occurrence had taken place at the door of the complainant at that time in the absence of the light the assailants could nor be recognized. Before the Court below it was, therefore, argued on behalf of the defence that the prosecution subsequently prevaricated and wrongly shown the scene of occurrence beyond the door of the house of the complainant air the road going towards Murray Company Crossing at a sufficient distance in the door of the complainant. Before the Court below it was, therefore, argued on behalf of the defence that the prosecution subsequently prevaricated and wrongly shown the scene of occurrence beyond the door of the house of the complainant air the road going towards Murray Company Crossing at a sufficient distance in the door of the complainant. The Investigating officer had also taken blood-stained earth from that place but according to the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist, Inc presence of human blood was not found thereon. Under the circumstances when in the F.I.R the name of Nanak was not at all given and it was specifically mentioned that the occurrence had taken place at the door of the house of the complainant immediately when the complainant went out of the house, when he was called by some persons, the conclusion of the learned cessions Judge that the prosecution has falsely shown the place of occurrence on the road going to Murray Company Crossing so that there could be presence of electric light on the road cannot be said to be unreasonable or that the learned Sessions Judge has drawn a clearly wrong inference from the facts on record when it could not be pointed out that the appreciation on this point was vitiated by failure to take note of any other important fact. 15. The fact that the F.I.R. also had not been lodged at 9.35 p. m. as stated and it does not contain facts as they have now come to evidence further raises a cloud of doubt about its veracity and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be wrong in coming to the conclusion that the same was in fact not lodged at 9.35 p. m. but might have been lodged subsequently. 16. That apart, from the admission of the witnesses it is also clear that they could have no compunction to falsely implicate the respondents. According to the prosecution, Ram Mohan had a grouse against Rajendra Kumar as be had lodged a report against him under Section 392, I.P.C. for snatching his gold chain and that the respondents were pressing for a compromise but the complainant and his son had not agreed. According to the prosecution, Ram Mohan had a grouse against Rajendra Kumar as be had lodged a report against him under Section 392, I.P.C. for snatching his gold chain and that the respondents were pressing for a compromise but the complainant and his son had not agreed. However, it is admitted on record that before the date of occurrence a final report was submitted by the police in that case on 5-7-1974 and thus there was no question for the accused-respondents to have any grouse against the injured. The prosecution also thus failed to prove the motive as suggested by them. It, however, indicated that relations of the complainant were not good. It is also in evidence that Hari Shanker, complainant was not only a supporter of one Hari Kishan Tewari in Nagar Mahapalika elections but also his Chief Election Agent and in that election Ram Mohan was elected and after his election the rental value of the house of the complainant was increased from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1,800/- for assessment of Corporation taxes. The complainant has admitted in his cross examination that he had filed an appeal and therein he had made allegations that Ram Mohan was the Chairman of the Assessment Committee and he got the rental value enhancad due to enmity. Thus it is clear that both Hari Shanaker as well as his son Rajendra Kumar, injured had a sufficient motive to falsely implicate the respondents. 17. The other witness Madho Prasad P.W. 3 is not a permanent resident of that place and he even could not say positively since when he started living there. Besides there is contradiction in the testimony of Hari Shankar and Madho Prasad as to when the latter had arrived at the scene of occurrence, i.e., according to Hari Shankar after he had raised cries, Madho Prasad had arrived, while the latter had said that he had arrived after hearing the cries of the injured himself. Besides there is contradiction in the testimony of Hari Shankar and Madho Prasad as to when the latter had arrived at the scene of occurrence, i.e., according to Hari Shankar after he had raised cries, Madho Prasad had arrived, while the latter had said that he had arrived after hearing the cries of the injured himself. that apart, the witness Madho Prassa has also admitted that he had filed a complaint against G.S. Mishra and therein he had named Hari Shanker and Rajendra Kumar as witnesses of the fact that he himself wanted that both Hari Shanker and Rajendra Kumar should give evidence in his case, this Madho Prasad could also have no communication to give evidence in the case of Hari Shanker and Rajendra Kumar even though it was doubtful that he was living in that Mohalla at that time. 18. In view of the above, it is further clear that the testimony of Madho Prasad, P.W. 3 could be said to be not an independent witness only but is also not free from suspicion and appears to be highly tainted as has rightly been found by the learned Sessions Judge. 19. Lastly, respondent Babu Lal had pleaded alibi and in support of that plea he examined two witnesses. D.W.1, Ujjal Singh Bhatia is Superintendent, Electrical and Mechanical Refrigeration, Garrison Engineer, Kanpur, who deposed that Babu Lal was on duty at the relevant time and he had brought Register wherein his presence was noted, D.W. 2, Sri Bindeshwari Prasad Saxena is Charge Mechanic of Garrison Engineer, Chakeri and was working there since 1963. He deposed that Babu Lal was working there and he proved the Attendance Sheets. He also proved that checking was done by Captain Uppal and there was an endorsement of Captain Uppal on the Attendance Sheet. The learned Counsel could not point out any infirmity in the testimony of these two witnesses and thus the acquittal of Babu Lal could not be assailed. 20. In the circumstances of the case, as discussed above, it is clear that the prosecution has clearly failed to make out that the acquittal of the respondents was wrong. 21. The appeal, therefore, has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.