VISHNU SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE respondents Babu Ram and Munendra alias Munendra Pal were charged, prosecuted and acquitted under Section 307/34 IPC and the respondent Suresh Kumar was charged, prosecuted and acquitted under Section 307 IPC. The trial was conducted by Sri. S. R. Sagar IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, who passed the order of acquittal on 21-4-1980 Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of acquittal the State of U. P. has filed the present appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case as has emerged from the recitals contained in the first information report and the evidence adduced during trial, is as under : ( 3 ) THE informant Haridwar Prasad (PW 1) was the Manager of the farm of Smt. Santoshi Devi wife of the victim Radhey Shyam (PW 2 ). Smt. Santoshi Devi is alleged to have purchased some land through a sale-deed from respondent Babu Ram. Babu Ram in respect of that land, is said to have filed a case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. which he is alleged to have lost. Thereafter he and the Society, of which he was Secretary, with respect to the same land, are said to have filed case in the Civil Court. That case was said to have been pending at the time of the incident. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on account of the aforesaid litigation, there was inimical strain between Radhey Shyam (PW 2), who is alleged to be the husband of Smt. Santoshi Devi, Smt. Santoshi Devis father Lala Kanhai Lal on one side and respondents Babu Ram, his brother Munendra alias Munendra Pal and his son Suresh on the other side. On 26-9-1977 at about 9. 00 A. M. Radhey Shyam along with Lala Kanhai Lal on a jeep is said to have gone to see the farm of Smt. Santoshi Devi and as soon as the jeep is alleged to have entered the aforesaid farm as a result of some mechanical defect it is said to have stopped. It is alleged by the prosecution that as scion as Radhey Shyam got down from the jeep, the respondents Babu Ram, Munendra alias Munendra Pal both armed with lathis and Suresh Kumar armed with a pistol came all of a sudden and surrounded Radhey Shyam. It is alleged by the prosecution that as scion as Radhey Shyam got down from the jeep, the respondents Babu Ram, Munendra alias Munendra Pal both armed with lathis and Suresh Kumar armed with a pistol came all of a sudden and surrounded Radhey Shyam. The respondents Babu Ram and Munendra are said to have told Suresh Kumar that he should kill Radhey Shyam and thereupon Suresh Kumar is alleged to have fired at Radhey Shyam resulting in the shot stricking Radhey Shyam in his chest region. It is said that apart from the victim himself this incident was seen by Sharmaji, Budh Sen, Lala Kanhai Lal and Sri Ram. The last four persons are said to have challenged the accused persons but they are said to have run away from the place of the incident. Immediately after the incident Kanhai Lal on a jeep accompanied by the informant Haridwar Prasad took Radhey Shyam for medical aid to Bareilly. On the way near Government College Haridwar Prasad is said to have got down from the aforesaid jeep and prepared the first information report of the incident at the Municipality out-post which was nearby and thereafter lodged it at Police-Station Neoria at 11. 45 A. M. ; the aforesaid Police Station being situate at a distance of 4 miles from the place of the incident. On the basis of the first information report a case under Section 307/34 IPC was registered against the three respondents at Police Station Neoria. ( 5 ) PW 5 S. I. Hari Ram Sharma was entrusted with the investigation of the case by the Station Officer of P. S. Neoria. He conducted the usual investigation. He is alleged to have inspected the site and taken statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation he submitted the charge-sheet (Ext. Ka 7) against the respondents. ( 6 ) PRIOR to the lodging of the first information report the victim Radhey Shyam (PW 2) had reached Clara Swain Hospital, Bareilly at 11. 45 A. M. He is said to have been medically examined by Dr. H. S. Agrawal (PW 6) who was Surgeon in the aforesaid Hospital. The following injury was found on the person of the victim by Dr. 45 A. M. He is said to have been medically examined by Dr. H. S. Agrawal (PW 6) who was Surgeon in the aforesaid Hospital. The following injury was found on the person of the victim by Dr. R. S. Agrawal :- "multiple Pellet wound over right anterior chest and a few laterally, one wound is wider about 1 1/2/2 cms in diameter medial to nipple, it is bleeding, other pellet wounds were also bleeding. No breath sounds heard over chest except at the apex. " In the opinion of the Doctor, the aforesaid injury was grievous in nature and was also dangerous to life. He also opined that it was attributable to gun shot. ( 7 ) AFTER the submission of the charge-sheet the case was committed to the court of Session by Sri P. N. Parasar on 4-2-1979. The accused persons (respondents) were committed to face their trial under Section 307/34 IPC. ( 8 ) THE learned trial judge framed a charge under Section 307/34 IPC against respondents Babu Ram and Munendra alias Munendra Pal and under Section 307 IPC against respondent Suresh Kumar. ( 9 ) TO substantiate its case during trial, the prosecution adduced the evidence of 6 witnesses out of whom 2 are ocular witnesses, namely, Haridwar Prasad (PW 1) and Radhey Shyam (PW 2 ). Out of the remaining 4 witnesses PW 5 is S. I. Hari Ram Sharma who conducted the investigation of the case and PW 6 is Dr. H. S. Agrawal who medically examined Radhey Shyam at the Clara Swain Hospital, Bareilly. Out of the other 2 witnesses, PW 4 Gajram Sharma had registered the case on the basis of the first information report lodged by PW 1 Haridwar Prasad. The evidence of the last witness Sher Bahadur is of a formal nature. ( 10 ) THE respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claim to have been falsely implicated by the witnesses. In defence one witness, namely, DW 1 Devendra Singh was examined. ( 11 ) THE learned trial judge, after considering the entire material on record and the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, passed the impugned order of acquittal. At the very outset we would like to mention that we are deciding an appeal against acquittal. In defence one witness, namely, DW 1 Devendra Singh was examined. ( 11 ) THE learned trial judge, after considering the entire material on record and the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, passed the impugned order of acquittal. At the very outset we would like to mention that we are deciding an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled through a catena of decisions that the High Court only interferes in an appeal against acquittal if the view of the learned trial judge is either manifestly perverse on facts or vitiated in law. If the view taken by the trial judge can reasonably be said to be arrived at, this Court does not substitute it with its own view. In that case the Honble Supreme Court in para 3 has said :- "though the powers of the High Court in considering the evidence on record in appeals under Section 417 are as extensive as ifs powers in appeals against convictions the Court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of accused. Where the lower court has found the accused not guilty, unless the conclusions reached by it are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or that its decision is likely to result in grave injustice, the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with its conclusion. If two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record then the view in support of the acquittal of the accused should be preferred. The fact that the High Court is inclined to take a different view of the evidence on record is not sufficient to interfere with the order of acquittal. " We may respectfully point out that this ratio has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions and is good law even today. We follow the aforesaid observations of the Honble Supreme Court and propose to decide this appeal in their light. ( 12 ) IN the instant case we endorse the view of acquittal taken by the learned trial judge although we would like to indicate that the strongest reason for acquittal has not been spelled out by the learned judge in his judgment. The strongest reason for confirming the acquittal of the respondents appears to be false implication of 2 of the respondents, namely, Babu Ram and Munendra alias Munendra Pal. The strongest reason for confirming the acquittal of the respondents appears to be false implication of 2 of the respondents, namely, Babu Ram and Munendra alias Munendra Pal. Both these respondents are real brothers and out of them respondent Babu Ram is the father of respondent Suresh Kumar. The motive for the present crime is said to be litigation between respondent Babu Ram and Smt. Santoshi Devi, wife of PW 2 Radhey Shyam, the victim in this case. To us, it appears extremely improbable that if respondents Babu Ram and his real brother Munendra were really present on the place of the incident armed with lathies, they would have been satisfied by merely instigating and would not have used their lathies. It is always easy to assign the role of instigation and what appears to us, is that in all probability both these respondents did not participate in the incident and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. If they have been falsely implicated then what is the assurance that Suresh Kumar, who is the son of the aforesaid Babu Ram, has not been falsely implicated. If the evidence of the 2 eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 Haridwar Prasad and PW 2 Radhey Shyam is not trustworthy with regard to the aforesaid 2 respondents, we feel extremely hesitant in placing reliance on their evidence vis-a-vis respondents Suresh Kumar. Our hesitation in accepting their testimony is all the more because the instant case has come before us in the form of a Government Appeal. ( 13 ) WE would now like to give out the other reasons which have weighed with us in confirming the impugned judgment. First of all we would like to point out chat the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive for the instant crime through cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. We have perused the record of the trial court and the material adduced by the prosecution and we find that there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that Babu Ram had ever started proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. against Smt. Santoshi Devi with respect to land nor there is evidence that he had filed any civil suit against Smt. Santoshi Devi with regard to that land. P. C. against Smt. Santoshi Devi with respect to land nor there is evidence that he had filed any civil suit against Smt. Santoshi Devi with regard to that land. The oral testimony of the 2 eye-witnesses with regard to motive is not trustworthy and dependable for the reasons recorded by the learned trial judge in his judgment. Hence the motive alleged by the prosecution is false. We are alive to the fact that the entire prosecution case would not be thrown out simply because the prosecution has failed to prove the motive. The failure of the prosecution to prove the motive would make us exercise maximum caution in evaluating the testimony of the 2 ocular witnesses, namely, Haridwar Prasad and Radhey Shyam. Both these witnesses are highly interested witnesses; the former being the Manager of the farm of Smt. Santoshi Devi and the latter being a part from the victim, the husband of Smt. Santoshi Devi. Since they are extremely interested witnesses, we would exercise further caution in assessing their testimony. We have been taken through their entire statements by the learned State Counsel and we are constrained to say that their evidence is not reliable and as rightly rejected by the court below for reasons stated in its judgment. Both these witnesses deposed about the participation of respondents Babu Ram and Munendra in the manner stated above. We have held in the earlier part of our judgment that in all probability Munendra alias Munendra Pal and Babu Ram have been falsely implicated. We are constrained to say that it would not be safe for us to accept their testimony vis-a-vis respondent Suresh Kumar. Their evidence is also not in accord with probabilities. ( 14 ) WE are alive to the fact that PW 2 Radhey Shyam is an injured witness but injuries only guarantee his presence and not his truthfulness. It is well settled that before the testimony of an injured witness is accepted by the court, the court should be satisfied that it is cogent, reliable, unimpeachable and trustworthy. We regret that we cannot classify the evidence of Radhey Shyam in the same category. ( 15 ) WE have our grave doubts both on the place of the incident and time of the incident. The prosecution case right from the first information report is that blood had fallen on the place of the incident. We regret that we cannot classify the evidence of Radhey Shyam in the same category. ( 15 ) WE have our grave doubts both on the place of the incident and time of the incident. The prosecution case right from the first information report is that blood had fallen on the place of the incident. The investigating Officer (PW 5) S. I. Hari Ram Sharma, who had reached the place of the incident, the same day at 4 P. M. , did not find any blood on the place of the incident. No explanation has been forth coming from the side of the prosecution as to why no blood was found on the site of the incident by the investigating Officer. We are also not satisfied that the prosecution has proved the time of the incident. PW 6 Dr. H. S. Agrawal, who has medically examined Radhey Shyam, admitted in cross-examination that he did not know the time when Radhey Shyam was examined by him. He has also stated that he does not know the time when he was admitted in Hospital. He has also stated in his statement that he cannot say whether the injuries could have been caused at 9 A. M. on the date of the incident. He also stated that there are no signatures or thumb-impression of the victim on his medical report. He has further stated that in the instructions which he had given in the Hospital to Nurses, first the name of victim was written Baby Kishan Chauhan; it was subsequently scored out and in its place Radhey Shyam was written. In such a state of evidence we are non prepared to hold that the medical evidence is of any help in fixing the time of incident. ( 16 ) ANOTHER reason, which creates grave doubts on the genuineness of the prosecution case is that the accused (respondents), are alleged to have been waiting in ambush in a sugar cane field for assaulting the victim Radhey Shyam. According to the prosecution just at that place as a result of mal-functioning the jeep stopped and Radhey Shyam got down resulting in the assault being launched on him by the respondents in the manner stated above. It is an extremely unhappy coincidence that jeep had to stop at the very place where the respondents were waiting in ambush. According to the prosecution just at that place as a result of mal-functioning the jeep stopped and Radhey Shyam got down resulting in the assault being launched on him by the respondents in the manner stated above. It is an extremely unhappy coincidence that jeep had to stop at the very place where the respondents were waiting in ambush. No definite knowledge that the jeep would stop there, can be attributed to the respondents which would have weighed with them in planning the manner of assault as described in FIR and evidence. ( 17 ) BEFORE parting with our judgment we would also like to state that the incident took place nearly 16 1/2 years ago and the impugned order of acquittal has been passed nearly 14 years ago. Right from then the sword of democles has been hanging on the head of the respondents. ( 18 ) WE would be failing in our duty if we do not mention that the case has been both, fairly and strenuously argued by the learned State Counsel Sri Mahendra Pratap. He has been of tremendous assistance to us in this case. He has read out before us the first information report, the Statements of the eye-witnesses, the statements of the Doctor and placed all other relevant evidence. We regret that we cannot agree with his contention that the evidence of the two eye-witnesses inspires confidence and belief. In our opinion the evidence of 2 eye-witnesses has been rightly disbelieved by the trial judge. ( 19 ) IN the result, the impugned order of acquittal of the respondents is confirmed and the Government Appeal is dismissed. We are informed that the respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal dismissed. . .