V. P. GOEL, J. State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents Mangali, Prem Narain, Jagdish alias Munnoo and Om Prakash under Sections 302, 302/34, 324 and 324/34, IPC by Sri S. R. Bhargava, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Non-Metropolitan Area, Kanpur on 23-3-1979. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the first information report in brief is that there was an old enmity between the accused Mangali and the deceased Govind Prasad : on 10th September, 1977 at about 7 a. m. in the morning, deceased Govind Prasad, his uncle Chutkan, brother Prakash Narain and his son Anil Kumar were going to ease themselves near Khalyan. When they reached near the field of Jagat Prasad, accused Mangali armed with Kanta, Jagdish armed with Pistol, Prem Narain armed with Kanta and Om Prakash armed with knife emerged on the scene, accused Jagdish fired Tamancha at Govind Prasad who fell down, remaining accused assaulted him with Kantas and knife Chutkan tried to save him, accused Mangali gave Kanta blows to Chutkan. Govind Prasad had died on the spot and Chutkan received injuries. The incident was witnessed by several persons. Prakash Narain Tewari son of Suraj Prasad lodged written first information report on 10-9-1977 at 7. 50 a. m. at Police Station, Ghatampur district Kanpur at a distance of three miles. 3. On 10th September, 1977 at 10. 40 a. m. Dr. U. N. Mehrotra PW 7 the then Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Ghatampur examined Chutkan PW 3 and found the following injuries on his person : (1) Incised wound (oblique) 2 "x x 1/5" deep of upper part of right shoulder blade, margins clean cut, no gapping or tapering clotted blood present. (2) Incised wound (oblique) 2jx "i", bone deep on back of right forearm 3 " below elbow, margins clean cut, gapping no tapering, bleeding present. 4. In the opinion of the doctor injuries could have been caused by sharp object. Injury No. 1 was simple. Injury No. 2 was kept under observation and patient was referred to U. H. M. Hospital, Kanpur for X-ray and treat ment of injury No. 2. Further in the opinion of the doctor both the injuries were fresh. 5. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Govind Prasad was conducted by Dr. S. P. Dubey PW 6 on 11th September, 1977 at 3. Further in the opinion of the doctor both the injuries were fresh. 5. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Govind Prasad was conducted by Dr. S. P. Dubey PW 6 on 11th September, 1977 at 3. 30 p. m. and the doctor found the following "ante-mortem injuries on the dead body : (1) Gun shot wound (wound of entry) 4 cm. x2 cm. X neck structure deep on left check in front of tragus of left ear. Margins inverted, scortching, blackening tatooing present on left side face. (2) Two gun shot wounds (wound of exist) 1 cm. diameter each on back of neck left side middle part, 3 cm. apart, margins everted. It is communicating to injury No. 1. Three gun-shots recovered from muscle and subcut, tissues of left side of neck. (3) Incised wound 10 cm. x5 cm. x muscle in front of left shoulder. (4) Incised wounds on front of right shoulder and upper chest right side (a) 3 cm X1 CIB X muscle (b) 8 cm x 2 cm. 4 cm. x muscle elevicle outer part cut underneath (c) 3 cm. x2 cm. X muscle (d) 2 cm. x 1 cm. X muscle. (5) Three incised wounds on front of neck and left of neck lower part (a) 4 cm. X 1 cm. X muscle (b) 3 cm. x 2 cm. X muscle (c) 6 cm. X 3 cm. X muscle. (6) Incised wound 15 cm. x 8 cm. x vertebrai column deep. Trachan Oesophaguscar. . . . . . ? vessels and juglar vessels of both sides cut through and through. (7) Incised wound 3 cm. XI cm. 2 cm. 1 cm. x muscle on right side of neck lower part. 6. In internal examination doctor found both the vertricles of the heart empty. Stomach contained 3 ozs. of wattry matter. 7. In the opinion of the doctor cause of death was shock and haemor rhage arising from ante-mortem injuries noted by the doctor. 8. A charge-sheet under Sections 302, 302/34, 324 and 324/34, IPC was submitted. At the trial the respondents pleaded that Govind Prasad was killed in diabolic : murder was committed in the early hours of the morning of 10th September, 1977 and the accused were falsely implicated in the present crime on account of enmity. The accused, however, did not adduce oral evidence. At the trial the respondents pleaded that Govind Prasad was killed in diabolic : murder was committed in the early hours of the morning of 10th September, 1977 and the accused were falsely implicated in the present crime on account of enmity. The accused, however, did not adduce oral evidence. They further relied upon the statement of PW 3 Chutkan recorded under Section 161, Crpc Ext. Kha-1 and further filed the documents Exts. Kha-2 to Kha-13. 9. To prove its case, the prosecution examined in all seven witnesses and relied upon 18 documents and four material exhibits. Out of whom PW 7 Dr. U. N. Mehrotra deposed that he had treated the injured Chutkan at Primary Health Centre, Ghatampur and examined his injuries on 10th September, 1977 at 8. 40 a. m. and proved the injuries and the injury report of Chutkan. 10. PW 1 Pratap Narain, PW 2 Luxmi Kant. PW 3 Chutkan are eye witnesses of the occurrence. PW 7 Dr. U. N. Mehrotra who had examined the injured Chutkan at Primary Health Centre Ghatampur and has proved the injury report Ext. Ka-13, PW 6 Dr. S. P. Dubey who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Govind Prasad and proved the post mortem report (Ext. Ka-12 ). PW 4 Ram Sbanker Shukla was Head Moharrir at Police Station, Ghatampur and has received the written report and prepared a chik report (Ext. Ka-2) and then registered the case. PW 5 Ram Das Rawat, Inspector-in- charge Police Station, Ghatampur had conducted the investigation in the case. 11. All the accused-respondents denied their participation in the crime and stated that they were falsely implicated in this crime on account of enmity. 12. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire evidence on re cord disbelieved the prosecution case and acquitted all the accused respondents. 13. On being aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal. 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 im portance or of great public importance. 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 im portance 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. Where an appeal against acquit tal 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 Courts appreciation of evidence is vitiated by failure to take note of a very important fact or where 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. 14. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, we find that the learned. Judge was of the view that the first information report is anti-timed and anti-dated-the first information report was shown to have been written at 7. 50 p. m. but it could not be so written ; it is more probable that the evidence regarding motive brings out double edged motive. Judge was of the view that the first information report is anti-timed and anti-dated-the first information report was shown to have been written at 7. 50 p. m. but it could not be so written ; it is more probable that the evidence regarding motive brings out double edged motive. There could both he motive for the murder in question and there could also have been motive for false implication ; the direct evidence adduced in the case is not reliable and three eye-witnesses examined in the casa hive to be branded as partisan, inimical and trained and the quality of the investigation is such that the witnesses coming through, it cannot inspire confidence and there is a direct conflict between the medical evidence and the eye- witnesses account. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the State and Sri R. Rathore counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has urged vehemently before us that the acquittal of the respondents is had in law and has resulted miscarriage of justice. He has contended that the testimony of the eye-witnesses was not in conflict with the medical evidence a id presence of the witnesses was not doubtful at the time of the incident and the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is wholly perverse, 16. Learned Sessions Judge has given very cogent and convincing reason in arriving at conclusion that the witnesses produced in this case were wholly partisan, chance and trained and no reliance could be placed on their evidence, we have also carefully examined the evidence of these three eye-witnesses and in our opinion, these three eye-witnesses had animus against the accused per sons and they are relations of the deceased. Their presence at the scene of the incident at 7-00 a. m. in the morning was highly doubtful and the story set up by them in their statements before the Court is an improvement of the story set up in the first information report and the statement under Section 161, Crpc. 17. So far PW 3 Chutkan, injured is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants urged that his presence at the scene of the incident cannot be doubted. 17. So far PW 3 Chutkan, injured is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants urged that his presence at the scene of the incident cannot be doubted. In the first information report, it is stated that Mangali gave a Kanta blow to Chutkan when he tried to save Govind Prasad while in the statement before the Investigating Officer and at the trial, the first informant deposed that after receiving a Kanta injury at the hands of Mangali, Chutkan took a turn and then Mangali gave a Kanta blow to Chutkan. This improve ment has been made by the witness to bring his evidence in the line of medical evidence. 18. The prosecution also failed to produce independent witnesses in this case despite the fact that they were available and their names find place in the first information report and the learned Judge has rightly observed that no explanation has come from the side of the prosecution as to why it did not produce any independent witness and therefore, the learned Judge was right in drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114, Evidence Act. 19. We have carefully scrutinised the statements of the three eye witnesses and other evidence and in our opinion, the three eye-witnesses pro duced by the prosecution are highly partisan, chance and trained witnesses and no reliance could be placed on their evidence and the learned Judge committed no error in disbelieving their evidence. 20. In the circumstances of the case 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. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Appeal dismissed. .