ORDER : 1. The State has come in appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Karnataka in reversal of the order of conviction passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum. 2. The facts reveal that PW3, Badshasab Khadirsab Desai, the father of the deceased and Sardarsab, the father of the accused, being full brothers, had partitioned their properties whereunder five acres of land was allotted to the share of PW 3 and the remaining five acres fell to the share of his brother, Saradarsab. PW3 was cultivating an area of approximately one acre and five gunthas out of the five acres which fell to the share of Sardarsab at the relevant point of time. It appears that PW 3 later claimed occupancy rights in respect of that area of land which soured the relations between the families of the two brothers. Under the partition arrangement both the families continued to live in the same house but a separate door was agreed to be put up by Sardarsab in his portion for which he was to receive Rs. 50/- from PW 3 towards the cost thereof. Indisputably, Sardarsab was paid this amount by PW 3. Despite the payment Sardarsab failed to put up the door. The accused was pressing for return of his land while PW3 was pressing for putting up the door which led to friction between the two families. Sardarsab died in the meantime. The embittered relations between the two families is a fact not in dispute. 3. The incident in question occurred on May 10, 1977. The deceased Nannusab has returned to his house at about 6.00 p.m. and after taking his supper went out and returned at about 7.30 p.m. PW 3 was sitting in the verandah with his wife Kulasumbi, PW4, inside the house. The accused was also present in his part of the house. There was some argument on the question of failure to put up a door and in the course of the said argument the accused is stated to have attacked the deceased with a sickle and caused as many as 12 incised wounds and a contusion. PWs 3 and 4 raised an alarm which attracted the attention of one Kallappa and PW 5, Basangouda. Kallappa is stated to have bandaged the wounds. PWs 3 and 4 raised an alarm which attracted the attention of one Kallappa and PW 5, Basangouda. Kallappa is stated to have bandaged the wounds. PW 3 went to call the Police Patil, PW7 Babagouda and returned with him and PW 8 Mahadevappa to the house. In the presence of PWs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the deceased is stated to have told that he was assaulted by the accused. The victim was thereafter removed to the hospital at Belgaum where he was visited by his elder brother PW 6 Khader. The victim succumbed to his injuries at 12.30 a.m. The FIR was lodged at 2.30 p.m. on the next day by PW 3. 4. The learned Trial Judge accepted the evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses and convicted the accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. On appeal the High Court reversed the decision of the learned Sessions Judge as it thought it risky to base a conviction solely on the interested testimony of PWs 3 and 4. The High Court also took the view that the conduct of PW 7 did not inspire confidence and hence it refused to act on the so-called dying declaration. The High court also felt that there was gross delay in lodging the FIR and the evidence regarding recovery was not honest. In this view that the High Court took it reversed the order of conviction and acquitted the accused. 5. We have heard Mr. Kaushik, the learned State Council. He has taken us through the judgment of the High Court and has submitted that the High Court was not justified in brushing aside the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 solely on the ground that they were interested witnesses. He also submitted that while PWs 5 and 8 had turned hostile, there was no infirmity in the evidence of PW7 justifying the High Court's refusal to place reliance on his testimony. He, therefore, submitted that notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to examine Kallappa, an independent witness, the evidence on record was sufficient to hold the respondent-accused responsible for the homicidal death of Nannusab. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State. He, therefore, submitted that notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to examine Kallappa, an independent witness, the evidence on record was sufficient to hold the respondent-accused responsible for the homicidal death of Nannusab. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-State. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the motive alleged by the prosecution, namely, the long standing enmity between the two families, is established. On account of the enmity while there is the possibility of the accused having assaulted the deceased there is also the possibility of false involvement. It is in this background that one has to examine the evidence of the two material witnesses, PWs 3 and 4, who are the parents of the deceased. The High Court observes that the prosecution story of a verbal quarrel preceding the assault is not borne out from the evidence of the independent witnesses, namely, PWs 5 or 8. PW 5 does not say that he had reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the heated quarrel between the accused and the deceased. He states that he went there on hearing the shouts of anguish of the victim. Kallappa, a neighbour, who had reached the scene of occurrence earliest in point of time has not been examined by the prosecution. No reason is put forth by the prosecution for not examining him. We repeatedly enquired of the State Counsel if there was any reason on record for dropping Kallappa but we were told that none could be found. The High Court has, therefore, taken the view that the prosecution has unfairly dropped the most vital and independent witness for reasons best known to it. The High Court has also come to the conclusion that the conduct of PW 7, a Police Patil of 14 years standing, is highly unnatural and that throws a serious doubt on the prosecution case. PW3 had gone to him to report the incident. He did not make any record although he says the deceased had disclosed the assailant's name. Till he died he did not record any statement of the deceased nor did he inform the police although they passed by the outpost. The police had come to the hospital after the doctor had sent the message but even then the FIR was not lodged. Till he died he did not record any statement of the deceased nor did he inform the police although they passed by the outpost. The police had come to the hospital after the doctor had sent the message but even then the FIR was not lodged. It was lodged almost two hours after the injured passed away in hospital. The PSI says he received the complaint at 5.00 a.m. The JMFC received it at 12.30 p.m. on the next day. There is thus no doubt that the lodging of the FIR was delayed for some in- explicable reason. Besides PWs 5 and 8 do not support PW 7 on the question of alleged oral dying declaration by the deceased. So far as PW 6 is concerned, he is the brother of the deceased. Admittedly, he was living at Belgaum and he went to the hospital on learning about the incident. He claims that his brother had told him that the accused had assaulted him. But the High Court finds it difficult to accept his testimony in this regard. 7. Both the courts below have rejected the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating articles in the course of investigation as the panch witnesses were found to be agents of the police who had appeared as panchas in several cases. This shows that the investigation was not honest. The High Court thus felt hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of PWs 3 and 4 for want of corroboration. 8. Thus the prosecution story that the incident was preceded by an argument is not supported by PWS. The indendent and vital witness Kallappn, a neighbour, who had reached the place of incident first in point of time, has not been examined and no valid reason is assigned for dropping him. The conduct of PW 7 is somewhat blameworthy. The FIR is unnecessarily delayed and appears to have been lodged after deliberation with PW 6. The evidence regarding recovery of articles is got up. PWs 5 and 8 do not support PW 7 on the question of the so-called oral dying declaration. In these circumstances the High Court thought that the genesis of the crime has been suppressed and it is, therefore, risky to place implict reliance on the testimony of PWs 3 and 4. The evidence regarding recovery of articles is got up. PWs 5 and 8 do not support PW 7 on the question of the so-called oral dying declaration. In these circumstances the High Court thought that the genesis of the crime has been suppressed and it is, therefore, risky to place implict reliance on the testimony of PWs 3 and 4. The view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be such as would warrant this Court's interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.