S. K. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Sessions Judge Etawah acquired Tej Singh, Rajjan and Ashok respondents of the charges under section 302/34, I. P. C. vide judgment dated 4. 4. 1979. This government appeal has been filed against that judgment ( 2 ) THE prosecution story as narrated in the First Information Report lodged by Shambhu Narain Tripathi was that while complainant was going with his nephew Govind Narain Tripathi at about 5 p. m. and when they reached in front of the house of Mahmood Khan, they heard alarm being raised. They reached the place of occurrence and saw respondents Tej Singh, and one unknown person assaulting complainants brother Ram Bharose Lal Tripathi with knife. The complainant and his nephew raised alarm. Whereupon both the assailants allegedly ran away. When the complainant reached near his brother he found him dead. The First Information Report was lodged on 14. 11. 1977 at 5. 30 p. m. The usual investigation ensued. The dead body of Ram Bharose Lal Tripathi was sent for post-mortem and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination found 14 ante-mortem injuries on his body, which were punctured and incised wounds. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the said injuries. ( 3 ) AFTER investigation chargesheet was submitted against four persons namely the three respondents and one Satya Narain. However Satya Narain died and therefore, three respondents were charted under section 302 read with 34 I. P. C. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses out of whom P. W. 1 Govind Narain Tripathi, P. W. 2 Ram Awatar, P. W. 3 Shyam Sunder and P. W. 4 Shyam Lal were examined as eye witnesses. The respondents pleased not guilty and claimed false implication due to enmity. The trial court after considering the evidence of prosecution side came to the conclusion that the charges have not been proved against the respondents. He therefore, acquitted the respondents. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Government Advocate and also heard the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record carefully. ( 5 ) SO far as the motive of the crime is concerned, the First Information Report did not disclose any motive. He therefore, acquitted the respondents. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Government Advocate and also heard the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record carefully. ( 5 ) SO far as the motive of the crime is concerned, the First Information Report did not disclose any motive. There was no evidence to prove the motive and therefore, the trial court was justified in observing that there was no evidence of motive for the commission of crime by the respondents. ( 6 ) COMING to direct evidence P. W. 4 Shyam Lal had stated that he did not see the occurrence. He was therefore, declared hostile. His evidence was, therefore, of no value. ( 7 ) NEXT eye witness P. W. 1 Govind Narain Trjpathi had stated that when he heard the alarm raised by victim he rushed towards the place of occurrence and found Satya Narain and Tej Singh assaulting his father. The First Information Report, however, did not disclose the name of Satya Narain as one of the culprits. This witness admits in cross-examination that he know Satya Narain from before. It was, therefore, important that name of Satya Narain should have been mentioned as one of the culprits in the First Information Report. P. W. 1 Govind Narain Tripathi also stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he found respondent Ashok alongwith one Rajjan standing near the place of occurrence. It is important to note that the name of Rajjan also does not find place in the First Information Report. The statement of this witness, therefore, appears to have been tutored. Had he seen the occurrence, he would have naturally named all the assailants to the maker of the First Information Report. No reliance can be placed on such a witness. ( 8 ) THE next eye witness Ram Awatar P. W. 2 deposed that 4 persons were assaulting Ram Bharose Lal Tripathi and they were Tej Singh, Satole, Ashok and Rajjan. He tried to say that Tej Singh and Satole gave knife belows to the victim but the other two assailants Rajjan and Ashok remained standing nearby at a short distance. The story set up by this witness also contradicted the First Information Report, and therefore, his presence became doubtful. He tried to say that Tej Singh and Satole gave knife belows to the victim but the other two assailants Rajjan and Ashok remained standing nearby at a short distance. The story set up by this witness also contradicted the First Information Report, and therefore, his presence became doubtful. The reasoning mentioned above, on which P. W. 1 Govind Narain Tripathi had to be disbelieved, also applied to this witness. ( 9 ) SHYAM Sunder P. W. 3 was the next eye witness. He had deposed that he was near his tubewell with his cattle when he heard the alarm. He simply found four persons namely Satya Narain, Tej Singh, Ashok and Rajjan running away. These assailants were having blood stained knives in their hands. These assailants washed their hands and knives in the pond nearby and thereafter they left that place. Thus, this witness did not support the occurrence itself. Even this witness named four assailants whereas First Information Report mentions only two assailants. The statement of this witness did not prove anything except that he saw the respondents running away. Even if the statement of this witness was to be believed he did not prove the culpability of the respondents or their participation in the crime. ( 10 ) ONE of the respondent namely Ashok claimed identification and he was identified by Govind Narain Tripathi P. W. 1 and Shyam Sunder P. W. 3. So far as Govind Narain Tripathi is concerned he has deposed in paragraph 3 that he knew respondent Ashok from before the incident. There is thus no value of identification of Ashok by these witnesses. P. W. 3 Shyam Sunder has also named Ashok and therefore his identification is without value. It is important to note that Shyam S under did not see the occurrence at all he only saw the respondents going away after washing their hands and weapons in the pond. ( 11 ) WE have considered the eye witness account of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and we find that there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which the respondents could have been convicted. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no scope for interference in the findings of the trial court because the findings cannot be said to be either unreasonable or unsustainable or perverse. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. We are, therefore, of the view that there is no scope for interference in the findings of the trial court because the findings cannot be said to be either unreasonable or unsustainable or perverse. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .