S. K. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENTS Raj Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Ramesh Chand who had been charged with an offence under section 302/34 I. P. C. were acquitted by learned Sessions Judge Etawah vide judgment dated 30. 4. 1979. The state has filed his appeal against that judgment. ( 2 ) THE prosecution version was that Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar respondents who are real brothers and Ramesh Chand, respondent No. 3, brother-in-law of first two respondents assaulted the deceased Lalman or 15. 3. 1978 at about 6. 30 P. M. in village Pitambarpur while the deceased was returning from Debiapur and proceeding to village Sehud. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar was armed with a gun, respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar was armed with a Tamancha and respondent No. 3 Ramesh Chand was armed with hockey and knife. Respondent No. 1 Raj Kumar is said to have fired from his gun, respondent No. 3 Ramesh Chand is said to have assaulted with hockey and also with a knife while respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar is said to have fired from country made pistol resulting in immediate death of the victim. ( 3 ) THE F. I. R. of the incident was lodged at the Police Station Debiapur on 15. 3. 1978 at about 7. 30 P. M. after covering a distance of five kilometers. The usual investigation ensued. P. W. 5 Samman Singh, Sub Inspector was present when the report was lodged. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and. found the dead-body of the victim lying at the place of occurrence. He did not prepare any inquest report in the night. The next day at 7. 30 a. m. inquest report was prepared. Eye witnesses, namely, Munshi Lal, Ramesh Chand, Ram Sanehi and Gaya Prasad were interrogated later on. Post mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by Dr. V. K. Gupta. P. W. 7. In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained and there were nine-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the victim. ( 4 ) A charge sheet submitted against the respondents and they were charged under section 302/34 I. P. C. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed false implication. ( 4 ) A charge sheet submitted against the respondents and they were charged under section 302/34 I. P. C. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed false implication. The prosecution examined seven witnesses including eye-witnesses Ramesh Chand, P. W. 1, Ram Sanehi, P. W. 2, Munshi Lal, P. W. 3 and Gaya Prasad, P. W. 4. The trial Judge after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was no reliable evidence against the respondents and acquitted the respondents. ( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the State Sri P. K. Srivastava as well as Sri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the entire record carefully. There are four eye witnesses in this case out of whom P. W. 3 Munshi Lal has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. P. W. 1 Ramesh Chand is the son of the deceased. He has admitted that he normally lives in Kanpur. The trial Judge was of the opinion that his presence at the time of occurrence was doubtful. The trial Judge has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the presence of this witness. The explanations offered by this witness during cross-examination regarding his presence alongwith his father have been rightly disbelieved by the trial Judge. The next eye-witness is Ram Sanehi. He supported the prosecution version in examination-in-chief but in cross-examination he disclosed that he remained on the spot for about half an hour after occurrence but admitted that the F. I. R. was not dictated in his presence. Thus he contradicted the statement of Ramesh Chand, P. W. 1 who had stated that the report was written out after the occurrence before going to the police-station near the place of occurrence. The statement of this witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 22. 3. 1978 several days after the occurrence. Therefore, also the trial court did not rely on the evidence of this witness. The explanation given by this witness regarding his presence at the time of occurrence has also unconvincing and unreliable. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly disbelieved this witness. ( 6 ) THE next eye-witness Gaya Prasad, P. W. 4 is resident of Pitambarpur. Therefore, also the trial court did not rely on the evidence of this witness. The explanation given by this witness regarding his presence at the time of occurrence has also unconvincing and unreliable. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly disbelieved this witness. ( 6 ) THE next eye-witness Gaya Prasad, P. W. 4 is resident of Pitambarpur. He has been shown to be interested in the deceased because his brother Brindaban was Sajhidar of Lalman deceased: He has been shown to be inimical towards the respondents because his father deposed against Prabhu Dayal, uncle of respondent Raj Kumar. Thus this witness was found to be neither independent nor reliable. 8/25/2006 ( 7 ) THERE is evidence that the dead body of the victim remained lying upto the morning of 16th March, 1978 without anything to cover the dead body. The explanation offered by P. W. 1 Ramesh Chand that no chadar was available to cover the dead body although the village of Ramesh Chand was hardly a few furlongs from the place of occurrence has rightly been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The greater probability is that the incident took place during early hours of the night and there was no eye witness of the incident and, therefore, the victims body remained lying without cover upto the morning of 16. 3. 1978. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the reasons and arguments on the basis of which the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents we do not find it a fit case for interference. There is perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. The appeal is without merits. It is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .