S. K. MOOKERJI, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of U. P. against the order and judgment of the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 163 of 1976 - State v. Udaibhan Singh and others, dated 23-5-1979, 2. By the above judgment of the Court below the accused Udaibhan Singh and others have been acquitted. Before the trial Court, Udaibhan Singh was charged under Section 307, I. P. C. , and all the other accused including Udaibhan Singh under Sections 147/148/149 and 307, I. P. C. 3. It is alleged that on or about 9-1-1964 at about 7-00 p. m. within limits of village Mubarakpatti, P. S. Mohammadabad, district Azamgarh, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and in the prosecution of common object of their assembly one of them viz. , Udaibhan Singh fired shot on the complai nant and caused injuries to him. The complainant and the accused were residents of common village and Police Station of the District. The accused are Udaibhan Singh, Sheopal Singh, Virendra Sureadra, Ram Brikcha Bhaggal, Harikrishna, Sri Prakash and Chauthi. Accused Udaibhan Singh and Virendra Singh are sons and nephew respectively of accused Sheopal Singh. Accused Surrendra and Sri Prakash are brothers and are relations of accused Sheopal Singh. The aforesaid accused and accused Ram Brikchha Singh are Thakur by caste. The remaining accused Bhaggal, Hari Krishna and Chauthi belonged to Ahir community. 4. The accused of Thakur community were big Zamindars. Late Haripal Singh, father of accused Virendra Singh held office of Honorary Magistrate during the British Regime. On the other hand, complainant Bhabhi Ram Yadav, a member of Ahir community was a political worker and later on became member of Legislative Assembly. After independence he held some elective offices also. At the time of occurrence he held the office of Pramukh Kshettra Samiti and thereafter he was returned to U. P. Legislative Assembly. 5. The occurrence took place on 9th January, 1964. After investiga tion, the police submitted the charge- sheet against the accused alongwith one Suresh Singh who died. The State Government, however, ordered C. I. D. Investigation. The charge-sheet submitted by the local police was not forward ed to the court of the concerned Magistrate. This Court also refused to issue any writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to submit the charge-sheet. The State Government, however, ordered C. I. D. Investigation. The charge-sheet submitted by the local police was not forward ed to the court of the concerned Magistrate. This Court also refused to issue any writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to submit the charge-sheet. In view of the fresh investigation made by the C. I. D. , the charge-sheet prepared by the local police was cancelled. Thereafter the com plainant filed the complaint (Ext, Ka-2) which gave rise to the above trial. On making enquiry, the Magistrate discharged the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, however, set-aside the discharge order and directed commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused. The accused, thereafter, approached this Court in revision which was dismissed. In pursuance of the above order, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The occurrence took place in 1964 and the above legal battle took 10 years and trial started almost after 10 years. 6. According to prosecution case, the accused formed a group. They were inimical and did bear ill-will against the complainant. They wanted an opportunity to cause injuries to the accused persons. The complainant also took precaution. On 9-1-1964 about evening, the complainant proceeded to his village Karha, Sheopujan (PW 2), Chandrapat (PW 3), Vakil Nat (PW 4) and some others accompanied him. The complainant and Mukhtar Nat had torches with them. The complainant and his companions reached south of the plot of Haripal Singh, east of a well by 7-00 p. m. There was sugarcane crops at the adjoining field of Haripal Singh. About 11-12 assailants including the accused suddenly came out of the sugarcane field. Accused Sheopal Singh enquired who are they. The complainant replied in affirmative. The torches were flashed towards them. All the accused were seen and recognised accord ing to the prosecution case. The accused Udaibhan Singh and Surendra had guns with them and rest had Lathies. Accused Sheopal Singh instigated the co-accused to assault the complainant. The complainant suffered injuries on his face, left eye, chest and right hand. He fell down and assailants ran away from the scene of occurrence. It is also stated that after the incident the complaint was brought to village Karaha and Ekka was searched for conveneince. Accused Sheopal Singh instigated the co-accused to assault the complainant. The complainant suffered injuries on his face, left eye, chest and right hand. He fell down and assailants ran away from the scene of occurrence. It is also stated that after the incident the complaint was brought to village Karaha and Ekka was searched for conveneince. The complainant was taken to the Police Station where first informa tion report was lodged at 11-15 p. m. on 9-1-1964. Head Moharrir Rampat Mishra prepared F. I. R. (Ext. Ka-1 ). The complainant was taken to the local dispensary for medical examination. He was medically examined and treat ment was given to him. Dr. B. P. Singh, Medical Officer-Incharge examined the complainant and found the following injuries: (1) Multiple small gun shot wounds visible on left side of forehead and head with swelling and clotted blood over it and also on face mostly on left side and also over left eye with bleeding from the eye. On face wounds cannot be counted, clotted blood over the face present. (2) Multiple small gun shot wounds over forearm and palm except on front aspect with clotted blood over it. (3) Eleven visible small gun shot wounds on front of the chest with clotted blood. (4) One visible small gun shot wound over right side abdomen wall. " In the opinion of the doctor, all the injuries were caused by gun shot. Injury No. 1 was grievous. Duration was about five hours old. The doctor prepared the injury memo and statement (Ext. Ka-21) and the same night the com plainant was sent and admitted in the District Hospital, Azamgarh for better treatment. He was later on shifted to Shiva Prasad Gupta Hospital, Varanasi and was treated there for about 25 days. Later on, under medical advice he got his injured eye operated in the Eye Hospital, Sitapur. The police did not prosecute the accused as indicated above, hence complaint, Ext. Ka-2 was filed. Before the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded that they were falsely implicated due to ill-will and enmity. 7. The prosecution examined the complainant-injured Bhabhi (PW 1), Sheopujan (PW 2), Chandrapat (PW 3), Vakil Nat (PW 4), and Ram Palat (PW 5) in support of its case. Ka-2 was filed. Before the trial the accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded that they were falsely implicated due to ill-will and enmity. 7. The prosecution examined the complainant-injured Bhabhi (PW 1), Sheopujan (PW 2), Chandrapat (PW 3), Vakil Nat (PW 4), and Ram Palat (PW 5) in support of its case. The prosecution also tendered in evidence the statement of Sheopujan and that of Vakil Nat made before the committing Court and some other papers including injury memo and the statement of Doctor (Ext. Ka-21) made before the Committing Court. PW 2 Sheopujan became hostile and he resiled from the statement made by him before the committing Court. The complainant, however, narrated the prosecution case. He proved the first information report lodged by him at the Police Station and the complaint (Ext. K-2) filed by him. Sheopujan has stated that at the time of occurrence he was accompanying the complainant to his village. Chandra-pat and Vakil Nat and others also accompanied them. They reached the place of occurrence when about 10-11 persons came out of the adjoining sugar cane field. He, however, stated that he did not recognise any one among them. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Chandrapat and Vakil Nat supported the prosecution. They have deposed the factum of the occurrence. Rampalat stated about taking into possession pf the blood-stained earth fallen on the spot by the Investigating Officer and in respect of the torches of the complainant and in witness Mukhtar Nat by the Investigating Officer. He also proved memos prepared by the Investigating Officer. The Court below heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined material on record and passed the order of acquittal which is subject-matter of this appeal, After examining material on record, the Court below recorded a finding of the fact to the effect that it was not possible to say that the accused had by immediate cause and motive to cause firearm injuries to the complainant and, it appears, highly improbable that they would wait to wreak vengeance on the complainant. The above finding of fact recorded by the court below cannot be said to be perverse. We uphold the same. The court below also held that the first information report of the complainant was delayed. The above finding of fact recorded by the court below cannot be said to be perverse. We uphold the same. The court below also held that the first information report of the complainant was delayed. The court below also expressed its surprise by saying that in all reasonableness and probability someone among the medical men must have been called to attend on the complainant to render first-aid. Omission to have availed first-aid at the earliest opportunity appears to the unnatural con duct. Further finding of fact are that on the facts of the case there appeared to be no escape from the conclusion that the occurrence took place after about 8-00 p. m. The defence submissions that the occurrence did not take place at the time alleged by the prosecution and that the first information report was ante-time, have been held. This finding is also quite reasonable and we have no reason to interfere with the same. 8. The learned Sessions Judge stated, after appreciating the evidence on record, that on the facts it was not possible to say that the actual assailant or assailants would have been identified by the prosecution witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the evidence of the prosecution on the ground that they did not deserve credence. In paragraph 19 of the judgment, the court below stated as under: "on the anxious consideration and appraisal of the evidence on records and circumstances of the case it is not possible to conclude that the complainant was assaulted on or about the time and the place and by the accused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the complainant in prosecution of their common object. The result, therefore, is that the offence cannot be brought home to any of the accused. The accused are found entitled to acquittal of the offence charged with. " In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and findings recorded by the court below, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the court below in the present case. The accused are found entitled to acquittal of the offence charged with. " In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and findings recorded by the court below, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the court below in the present case. It is an established principle of law that an appreciation of evidence if one view is taken by the trial Court, the same normally shall not be upset by this Honble Court as fresh appraisal of evidence on record provided the findings recorded by the Court below, are not perverse. The occurrence in the case took place in the year 1964 and after the protracted litigation, the order of the acquittal was passed on 23-5-1979 and, therefore, also it is too late to inter fere in this matter. The dispute, if any, had come to an end at least in 1979 and there is no occasion to disturb the hostile feeling of the parties in this case amongst themselves. 9. In the result, the Government Appeal No. 2523 of 1979 -State of U. P. v. Udai bhan Singh and others, is dismissed. The accused-respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed. .