JUDGMENT : - V.N. Mehrotra, J. 1. THE State of U. P. has filed the appeal against the Judgment dated 23.5.1979 passed by Shri B. K. Srivastava, III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur acquitting the accused persons of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34,I.P.C. 2. ACCORDING to the prosecution allegations the occurrence took place at about 5.30 p.m. on 16.5.1977, in village Sahgaura, P. S. Gagha district Gorakhpur when one Banshu was murdered by the accused persons. It is said that accused Ram Chandra alias Chander, Ram Ji and Sita Ram were real brothers while accused Dukharan was their uncle. All these accused persons were residents of village Tikar. About 3 years before the present occurrence, one Banshraj, who was one of the brothers of accused Ram Ji, had been murdered and in that case Ram Bharose alias Bharosa (P.W. 2), deceased Banshu and some other persons were tried. They were, however, acquitted. It alleged that the relations between the accused persons and the complainant party were inimical since a long time due to the above mentioned incident their relations further deteriorated. It is said that the marriage of the daughter of Ram Harakh was to be performed on 20.5.1977 and in this connection Nandu and Ram Chandra, who belong to the family of the informant, were sent to the house of Saheb Tiwari in the evening of 16.5.1977 in order to bring beddings from his house. The house of Saheb Tiwari lies towards the south-west of a pond in a village Sahgaura. These two boys met accused Ram Ji in the way who abused them which led to a quarrel between them. When other accused persons were informed about this quarrel they started for that place. Accused Ram Chandra at that time was armed with a spear, while accused Sita Ram and Dukhharan were armed with lathis, Ram Samujh (P.W. 1) and deceased Banshu and one Ranjit also followed these persons, when they came to know about this quarrel. When deceased Banshu tried to pacify the accused persons, accused Sita Ram, Dukhharan and Ramji exhorted Ram Chandra and on that exhortation he struck Banshu with his spear on his chest. Banshu died on the spot as a result of fatal injuries received by him. It is said that on the alarm raised by the witnesses a number of other persons had reached the spot. Banshu died on the spot as a result of fatal injuries received by him. It is said that on the alarm raised by the witnesses a number of other persons had reached the spot. The accused persons then ran away from the place leaving the spear on the spot. The informant Ram Samujh (P.W. 1) scribed the report Ext. Ka-1 and lodged the same at 9.15 p.m. on the said day. 3. AFTER registration of the case investigation was conducted by S. I. Gopal Ji Singh, (P.W. 8). He reached the scene of occurrence in the same night but could not start investigation as there was no arrangement for light. He prepared the inquest report and other connected papers early in the morning of 17.5.1977. The dead body was handed over for being taken for postmortem examination. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also prepared site plan after local inspection. The Investigating Officer also took in his possession sample of blood stained clay as well as the spear and prepared 'fards' in respect of the same. The charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation. 4. THE post-mortem examination of the dead body of Banshu was conducted by Dr. A. Khanna (P.W. 7) at 5 p.m. on 17.5.1977. THE Doctor found one punctured wound on the left side chest: which was heart cavity deep. Four ounce blood was found in the pericardial cavity. THE heart had been pierced. Seven ounce watery fluid was found in the stomach. THE large and small intestine contained faecal matter and gases. According to Dr. Khanna the: deceased had died about one day earlier as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to the ante mortem injuries. 5. THE Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet against all the four accused persons named in the first information report. Accused Ram Ji died due to which the trial against him abated. THE remaining three were tried. Charge under Section 302, I.P.C. was framed against accused Ram Chandra while against the two other accused persons charge under Section 302, I.P.C. read with section 34, I.P.C. was framed. THE prosecution examined Ram Samujh (P.W. 1), Bharas alias Bharosa (P.W. 2). Nandu (P.W. 3) and Nirmal (P.W. 4) as eye-witness of the occurrence. Apart from this, other formal and medical evidence produced. 6. THE prosecution examined Ram Samujh (P.W. 1), Bharas alias Bharosa (P.W. 2). Nandu (P.W. 3) and Nirmal (P.W. 4) as eye-witness of the occurrence. Apart from this, other formal and medical evidence produced. 6. THE accused persons pleaded not guilty of the offence charged and asserted that they have been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. They also asserted that the witnesses were inimical to them. THE accused persons examined Shri Kamlakar Ram Tripathi as (DW 1) In defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge examined the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the same was not sufficient to prove guilt of the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. He accordingly acquitted them. 7. DURING the pendency of the present appeal accused Dukhharan has died and so the appeal as against him lias abated. The appeal has been heard as against respondents Ram Chandra alias Chander and Sita Ram only. 8. THE learned A. G. A., who is representing the State of U. P., has argued that there were as many as four eye witnesses of the occurrence who have fully supported the prosecution case and there was no reason for which their statements could be disbelieved. It has further been argued that there was sufficient motive to have committed the murder of Banshu and the medical evidence as well as the circumstances of the case also corroborated the statement of the witnesses as regards the occurrence. Learned A. G. A. has further argued that the view taken by the trial court was perverse, unreasonable and should be reversed. 9. SHRI Siddarth Shukla, who is representing the accused-respondents, has however, argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given sufficient reasons for coming to the conclusion that the evidence produced by the prosecution was not reliable and was insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel has further argued that in an appeal against acquittal this court should not reverse the finding recorded by the trial court merely because a different view could be taken by this Court, unless it is shown that the view taken by the trial court was unreasonable and was not supported by the material on record. 10. WE have heard the learned counsel for the State of U. P., and the respondents and have perused the record of the case. 10. WE have heard the learned counsel for the State of U. P., and the respondents and have perused the record of the case. It is to be seen whether the findings recorded by the trial court were unreasonable or not based on the material on record or could be termed perverse. This court will not interfere with the findings of acquittal merely on the ground that it may come to a different conclusion on the basis of the same evidence. In the present case it cannot be disputed that Banshu had died as a result of the ante mortem injury received by him. That injury, which is a punctured wound, could be caused by the spear. Actually the Investigating Officer Gopal Ji Singh had seen the dead body when he reached the scene of occurrence. The question arises as to whether the prosecution evidence is reliable and convincing and is sufficient: to establish that the murder of Banshu was committed by the accused persons at the time and place alleged by the prosecution. The place of occurrence is said to be near the pond belonging to Gaon Samaj, Sahgaura. The Investigating Officer found the dead body lying towards the south of this pond on a passage. He said that some blood was also found where the dead body was lying. The prosecution has in this case examined four eye-witnesses, as mentioned above. These witnesses have supported the prosecution case. They have asserted that it was in their presence that Ram Chandra hit the victim on his chest by the spear on being exhorted by other accused person. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has critically examined the statement of these witnesses. He has observed that each of these witnesses, was highly interested and inimical. He had also observed that according to the prosecution case itself a large number of other witnesses had reached the scene of occurrence. However, none of them has been examined by the prosecution. It is also clear from the record that none of these four witnesses is the resident of the locality where the murder was committed. They allegedly reached the place of occurrence from different places either on receiving the information about the earlier quarrel or on hearing shouts of witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that there were inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses regarding prosecution case. They allegedly reached the place of occurrence from different places either on receiving the information about the earlier quarrel or on hearing shouts of witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that there were inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses regarding prosecution case. In this connection reference may be made to the statement of Ram Samujh (P.W. 1) Ram Bharosa alias Bharosa (P.W. 3) and Nirmal (P.W. 4). They are not sure as regards the place where Ram Samujh (P.W. 2) and deceased Banshu were present and from where they had started on being informed about the alleged quarrel between Ram Ji and the two boys. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also pointed out to the actual manner of the incident when Banshu received the blow allegedly struck by Ram Chandra. He also referred to the inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses as to in what manner Banshu fell down on receiving the blow and also whether Ram Chandra attempted to pull out the spear after giving blow and whether he actually pulled out the spear or could not succeed in pulling out the same. The witness have also given different statement as to whether Ram Chandra threw down the spear after pulling it out from the chest of the deceased or he left the spear stuck in the chest. 11. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has also commented on the fact that though a very large number of witnesses including the informant and his companions had reached the place of occurrence and even when the assailants had started running away leaving the spear on the spot, even then these large number of persons could not apprehend any accused person. There is also inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses as to whether any of them tried even to chase the assailants. 12. THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has also pointed out to the fact that according to Ram Samujh (P.W. 1) Banshu had taken food at the house of Ram Lagan at 1.30 p.m. and the food comprised of bread, dal and vegetables. THE stomach did not contain any food material at the time of post-mortem examination. As mentioned earlier the Doctor found faecal matter and gases in the small and large intestine and some watery fluid in the stomach. THE stomach did not contain any food material at the time of post-mortem examination. As mentioned earlier the Doctor found faecal matter and gases in the small and large intestine and some watery fluid in the stomach. According to the Doctor it would have taken about six hours or so far the food to digest and earlier to that semi-digested food would have been present in the stomach. Considering this fact it becomes doubtful that the occurrence actually took place at about 5.30 p.m. Possibility that the occurrence took place much later may be at about 8 or 9 p.m. cannot be ruled out. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also commented on the assertions by the Investigating Officer that he had reached the scene of occurrence at about 1.30 p.m. In the night of 16/17.5.1977. The Investigating Officer did not start Investigation in the night allegedly due to the lack of light on the spot. Even, if no sufficient light was available for preparing the inquest report, the Investigating Officer could have: recorded the statement of witnesses after reaching the spot. He, however, asserts that he prepared the Inquest report at 5.35 a.m. next day and then prepared other papers and recorded the statements of witnesses. The other prosecution witnesses have, however, stated that the Investigating Officer reached (the village early in the morning of 17.5.1977 which belies the assertions by the prosecution witnesses. Apart from this though the case was registered under Sections 34, 302 and 504, I.P.C. Sections 34 and 504 were not written on the Panchayatnama or other papers prepared at the same time. As noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sections 34 and 504, I.P.C, were apparently written subsequently in different ink on these papers. In these circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the first information report might have been ante-timed in this case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also commented that there was no immediate motive for the crime. However, we are unable to accept this observation as it is not disputed that the parties were inimical for a long time and certain quarrels had taken place earlier. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also commented on the point that only a small quantity of blood was found at the place where the dead body was lying. However, we are unable to accept this observation as it is not disputed that the parties were inimical for a long time and certain quarrels had taken place earlier. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also commented on the point that only a small quantity of blood was found at the place where the dead body was lying. He has also commented upon that the dead body was brought from some other place. It is difficult to accept this finding. The Investigating Officer actually found blood near the dead body. Some blood was also found in the cavity, as mentioned in the post-mortem report, so the observation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on this point does not appear to be acceptable. However, the fact remains that the evidence produced by the prosecution In this case was highly interested and though independent witnesses were available, none of them was examined to support the prosecution case. Apart from this the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence and it cannot be said that the prosecution evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In any case the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable nor it can be said that the same could not be taken on the basis of the material on record. 13. IN view of the above discussions the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.