JUDGMENT Mr. S.K. Verma, J. Respondents Sukhdeo, Laxmi, Sheo Darshan Singh and Pratap Singh who were charged under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. were acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, vide judgment dated 26th May 1979. 2. This state appeal has been filed against that acquittal. 3. The prosecution allegations were that because of previous enmity, on 11th March, 1976 at about 7 or 8 p.m. Amarnath Singh, the victim of this crime, was assaulted by the respondents. All the respondents were armed with guns, respondent Pratap Singh is said to have exhorted the other three respondents and the respondent Sukhdeo is said to have fired a shot from his gun towards Amarnath Singh who is said to have stood up on the cot on which he was sitting resulting in injuries to his leg. Then respondent Laxmi is said to have fired another shot which hit the wall of the house of the victim. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged on 28.8.1976 at about 8.30 p.m. in police station Ghazipur, district Fatehpur, after covering a distance of 9 miles. The usual investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The injuries on the victim Amarnath Singh were examined on 12.6.1976 at 10.30 a.m. and the gunshot wounds were found on his person - one on the upper third of left leg front side and the other on the upper third backside of the left leg. There was no blackoming, charring or tatooling of the injuries. The charge sheet was submitted against the respondents and after the prosecution evidence consisting of three eye-witnesses, namely, Sukhdeo Singh (P.W. 1), Jagat Pal Singh (P.W. 2) and Amarnath Singh (injured), P.W. 5 and three formal witnesses was recorded the prosecution closed its evidence. 4. The respondents denied the charges and claimed false implication due to enmity. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence of the prosecution, acquitted the respondents which has resulted in this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the evidence on record. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge based his findings on several grounds. Firstly, it was found that though there was enmity between the parties, yet there was no immediate motive for the commission of this crime. We have heard the learned Counsel for the State and the learned Counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the evidence on record. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge based his findings on several grounds. Firstly, it was found that though there was enmity between the parties, yet there was no immediate motive for the commission of this crime. Secondly, it was found that there has been unexplained and unreasonable delay in lodging the F.I.R. Thirdly, it was found that only interstate witnesses were produced although witnesses Jagat Narain Singh, Ram Raj Singh and Vijai Bahadur Singh who were not interested were not produced. Fourthly, it was found that although the presence of blood was material it was admitted by the eye-witnesses that the Investigating Officer did not find any blood at the place of occurrence. Fifthly, it was also found that though the eye-witnesses stated that respondent Laxmi had fired from his gun and that shot had hit the wall, the Investigating Officer did not find any trace of the shot fired which had hit the wall. 6. Again, the Investigating Officer did not find any pellets or tiklis which should materially have been found on the spot. Again, the learned Sessions Judge found that in view of medical evidence the eyewitnesses, because of tutoring, for the first time in their evidence stated that the shots were fired from near a cattle trough so as to explain the medical evidence, which was not the earlier version narrated in the First Information Report. The doctor who examined the injured witnesses had not found blackening, charring or tatooing on the wound. Again, it was found, after consideration of evidence, that though the whole version was that there was only one cot at the place of occurrence in evidence the presence of the cots was stated and this was also material contradiction. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that though there were four guns available to the assailants they would have easily killed their victim and their failure to do so makes the entire presentation version highly improbable. 7. After considering the arguments advanced at the barand the evidence discussed by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that there is no scope for interference with the finding of the Trial Court. The Trial Court's findings cannot be said to be unsustainable, perverse or unreasonable. 8. 7. After considering the arguments advanced at the barand the evidence discussed by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that there is no scope for interference with the finding of the Trial Court. The Trial Court's findings cannot be said to be unsustainable, perverse or unreasonable. 8. We do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed.