S. I. JAFRI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State of U. P. impugning therein the judgment and order recorded by Special Judge/additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in S. T. No. 229 of 1981 wherein the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the respondents not guilty and purged them of the charges under Section 302/149/307/ 149 I. P. C. and 148 I. P. C. ( 2 ) BEFORE dwelling on the prosecution case it would be useful to delineate certain facts intertwined with the fate of this appeal. This case had come up for leave to file appeal and for admission of the appeal filed by the State on 20-5-1987 and the same day, the case having been heard on merit, the leave to appeal was refused and the appeal preferred by the State was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of this Court on the premise of not recording the reasons, the State went up in appeal before the Hon. Supreme Court. Hon. Supreme Court vide its order dated 16th Oct 1989 remanded the case back to this Court for disposal in accordance with law observing therein that the High Court had committed serious error in dismissing the appeal without stating any reasons. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the State afresh vis-a-vis the findings recorded by the trial court in its judgment referred to supra. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case as gleaned from the record, are that relations between the family members of the accused and, the complainant had degenerated prior to the incident in the instant case. On, the day of occurrence i. e. 1-5-1979 at about 3. A. M. complainant Prabhunarain Rai alongwith Sridhar Rai who had gone to Harijan Basti of his village Ora in order to engage the labourers for purposes of winnowing in their fields, were on way back to their home through Chak Road in the western side. As soon as both of them arrived on the northern Meand of the chak of Udai Narain of the same village, accused persons Har Prasad, Virendra, Tribhuwan Surendra and Kumar Yadav who were armed with country made pistols Nagendra and Awadh Behari who were armed with spears Vishwanath and Doodhnath who were armed with guns materialised at the scene and gave a chase to the complainant and Sridhar Rai (deceased ). Sridhar Rai being afflicred with paralysis, could not sprint and was encircled in between the fields of Patti and Jagpat Rai and was assaulted with their respective weapons by the accused. Prabhunarain Rai complainant was also fired upon but he escaped unhurt. Sridhar Rai (deceased) on sustaining injuries, died instantaneously on the spot. ( 5 ) THE autopsy on the dead body of Sridhar Rai (deceased) was conducted on 2-5-1979 at about 10 A. M. and as many as nine anti-mortem injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased. The Doctor conducting autopsy on the dead body was of the opinion that Sridhar Rai would have died on the spot on 1-5-1979 at about 8 A. M. ( 6 ) THE accused persons pleaded not guilty and attributed their false implication in the case to enmity preceding the date of occurrence between them and the complainant. In defence, Ish Narain Dwevdi was examined as D. W. I who deposed that Virendra accused was present at Akbarpur Roadways Bus Depot in the work shop on 1-5-1979 D. W. 2 Shamshul lama deposed that accused Har Prasad was present at the Roadways Sultanpur on 1-5-1979 and in support of their version, attendance registers were produced. ( 7 ) THE prosecution examined in all five witnesses and out of them Prabhunarain Rai P. W. 1, Suryanarain Rai P. W. 2 were examined as ocular witnesses. P. W. 2 Suryanarain Rai in his deposition nominated only Har, Prasad, Virendra and Nagendra Rai as the author of the crime and hence he was treated hostile. ( 8 ) P. W. I Prabhu Narain Rai has lent full support to the prosecution case in all material particulars. I have gone through the deposition of the witness with care and concern and reappraised his evidence vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances on the record. I have also gone through the findings arrived at by the Trial court. The Trial court has discredited the evidence of the witness and disbelieved the prosecution case on number of improbabilities born of the facts and circumstance on the record and the evidence adduced in the instant case by the prosecution. I have also gone through the findings arrived at by the Trial court. The Trial court has discredited the evidence of the witness and disbelieved the prosecution case on number of improbabilities born of the facts and circumstance on the record and the evidence adduced in the instant case by the prosecution. ( 9 ) THE case of the prosecution is that both the parties were on inimical terms from before the occurrence in the instant case inasmuch as that on 25-7-1977 Tribuwan Rai Virendra Rai had fired at Sridhar Rai deceased and Prabhunarain Rai as a result of which Sridhar Rai had sustained injury in his head and suffered paralysis in the left portion of his body. The case of the prosecution further is that trial of the aforesaid incident was pending at the time of the occurrence in the instant case. Besides proceedings u/s. 107 Cr. P. C. were also pending at the time of the incident between the complainant family and the accused Nar Prasad etc. over and above a case under Section 302 I. P. C. which was also pending against the complainant and his brother Sridhar Rai for the murder of Chandra Shekhar, father of accused Virendra and Nagendra and real brother of accused Nar Prasad. The learned Trial court appraised the evidence of Prabhu Narain Rai P. W. 1 meticulously and recorded a finding to the effect that he was not a straight forward person in as much as that the witness had denied his knowledge about his brother Sridhar (deceased) having been arrayed as accused in the murder case of Bhalchand and Ram Bachan Rai. The witness also denied knowledge about the case u/s. 307, 399 and 302 I. P. C. in which Sridhar had been arrayed as accused. The Trial court did not scruple to express grave doubts about the presence of the witness at the scene of occurrence for which he has recorded a finding fortified by, cogent and convincing reasons. While dealing with the medical evidence, the learned Trial Court, recorded finding that according to Dr. K. S. Mishra P. W. 4 who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, the deceased had taken some food 2-3 hours before his murder. While dealing with the medical evidence, the learned Trial Court, recorded finding that according to Dr. K. S. Mishra P. W. 4 who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, the deceased had taken some food 2-3 hours before his murder. While adverting to the evidence of P. W. I Prabhunarain Rai in which it was stated by the witness that Sridhar Rai used to take meals at about 8 P. M. in the night. The trial court deducted that the deceased Sridhar Rai had been murdered sometime during the night. Turning to the injuries sustained by the deceased Sridhar the trial court deduced that the deceased had sustained six gun shot wounds on his chest and abdomen from a very close quarter as is borne out from the post mortem report and the evidence of Dr. K. S. Mishra, P. W. 4 who had conducted autopsy on the dead body, as against the facts in the evidence of Prabhunath Rai P. W. I in which it was deposed that accused persons had encircled them from a distance of 20-25 yards and that the accused persons had started firing at them from a distance of 35-40 paces before encircling them. The medical evidence as stated above belies the claim in his evidence by the witness thus the prosecution version is totally belied by the medical evidence. ( 10 ) UPON a consideration. I feel that the finding recorded by the trial court is quite cogent and convincing and knocks the bottom out of the prosecution case in so far as veracity of the prosecution case goes. In the above conspectus of the facts and circumstances and the discussions. I feel that no case for interference for upsetting the findings of the trial court is made out. Hence, the appeal preferred by the state is liable to be dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the result the appeal preferred by the State is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .