D. K. TRIVEDI, J. The present crimi nal appeal has been preferred by the Slate of U. P. against the order of acquittal of the accused-persons of the charges levelled against them by order dated 3 12-1979 passed by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad. Accused-respondent Ram Achal alias Jok han Singh was prosectued under Section 302, IPC and accused-respondent Gaya Prasad Singh was prosecuted under Sec tions 109, 302, IPC in connection with an incident which was alleged to be taken place on 6-5-1978 at about 12. 30 p. m in village Raipur, P. S. Cantt. . District Faiza bad. 2. Accused-respondent, Ram Achal alias Jokhan Singh is son of Gaya Prasad Singh. It is alleged that the accused-respondents live near the house of the complainant. It is said that on the date of the incident, some altercation took place between accused Gaya Prasad Singh on one hand and Surendra Pratap Singh on other hand regarding removal of dry fod der from near the house of the accused. It is said that Gaya Prasad Singh asked Surendra Pralap Singh (deceased) to re move the straw immediately but Surendra Pratap Singh (deceased) told him that as soon as labour is available it would be re moved. However, it is further alleged that accused Gaya Prasad Singh then instigated Ram Achal Singh who was standing nearby in his verandah armed with gun. came there and fired at Surendra Pratap Singh as a result of which he fell down on the ground. It is further alleged that the incident was witnessed by Dhruraj Singh, Hashing Lal Behari and Chandra Bux Singh. At that time, Surendra Pratap Singh was alive and therefore, he was put on a cot and with the assistance of village people he was brought to the road whereaf ter arranging a tempo he was brought over to the Sadar Hospital, Faizabad but before he could be taken inside the hospital, he died. Dhruraj Singh son of Surendra Pratap Singh (deceased) prepared a report and lodged the same at 3. 30 p. m. at P. S. Cantt. on the same day. It is also alleged that in the meantime a report about the dcalh of Surendra Pralap Singh was con veyed by the hospital authorities to the police station Kotwali. PW-6 Raj Narain Dubey came there and prepared the in quest report and sent the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination. on the same day. It is also alleged that in the meantime a report about the dcalh of Surendra Pralap Singh was con veyed by the hospital authorities to the police station Kotwali. PW-6 Raj Narain Dubey came there and prepared the in quest report and sent the dead body to mortuary for post-mortem examination. PW-7 S. I. Ambika Singh received the pa pers through Home Guard Raghav Ram at about 4. 30 p. m. near Polytechnie and from there he proceeded to the place of incident reaching there at 5. 30 p. m. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and pre pared the site-plan Ext. Ka-1. He also re covered the blood-stained and plain earth from the place of the incident. He also recovered an empty cartridge from the place of the incident. On 7-5-1978 the investigation of this case was taken over by PW-11 Ram Krishna Shukla, S. O. who recorded the statements of the remaining witnesses and arrested accused Gaya Prasad Singh and Ram Achal Singh on 7-5-1978 and 10-5-1978 respectively. It is further alleged that he interrogated ac cused Ram Achal Singh and thereafter, on his pointing out he recovered the gun from the shop of National Arms Store, Rikab-ganj, Faizabad and thereafter, the empty cartridge and the gun so seized were sent to the Scientific Section, C. I. D. U. P. Lucknow for examination. He after com pleting the investigation submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons. The post-mortem of the dead body of de ceased Surendra Pratap Singh was conducted by PW-8 Dr, D. N. Tiwari on 7-5-1978 at about 12 in the Noon. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of deceased Surendra Pratap Singh: (i) Regor mortis was found to be present in the upper and the lower extremities. The deceased was found to have a gun-shot wound of entry 7 cm x 6 cm abdominal cavity on the left iliiac fossa, oval in shape. The margins of the wound were inverted and directed down wards slightly. Blackening, tattooing or char ring was not present around the wounds. This was wound of entry. (ii) A corresponding wound of exit 10 cm. x 5 cm. x abdominal cavity communicating with injury No. 1 through and through with everted margins irregular in shape was found. No tattooing, charring or blackening was found. Blackening, tattooing or char ring was not present around the wounds. This was wound of entry. (ii) A corresponding wound of exit 10 cm. x 5 cm. x abdominal cavity communicating with injury No. 1 through and through with everted margins irregular in shape was found. No tattooing, charring or blackening was found. Just above injniry No. 1 a wad was found while eight pellets were found from near injury No. 2. 3. On internal examination, according to the doctor the peritoneus of the deceased was found to be lacerated. The large intes tine, descending colon, pelvice colon, rec tum and small intestine underneath injury No. 1 were found to have been lacerated at various places. The bladder was found empty which was also found lacerated at multiple places under neath injury No. 1. According to the doctor the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injury No. 1. The post- mortem report is Ext. Ka-12. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses; out of them PW-1 Dhuru Raj Singh, PW-2 Lal Behari, PW-3 Hashim and PW-4 Chandra Bux Singh are the witnesses of fact. PW-5 Vibhuti Prasad Singh, Consta ble, proved the FIR as well as chik report. PW-6, S. I. , Raj Narain Dube prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body of deceased Surendra Pratap Singh to mortu ary for postmortem exmaination. PW-7 S. I. , Ambika Singh conducted the initial investigation and on arrival of PW-11, S. I. , Ram Krishna Shukla, handed over the investigation of this case to him. PW-8 Dr. D. N. Tiwari conducted the autposy on the dead body of deceased Surendra Pratap Singh and proved the post- mortem report Ext. Ka-12, PW-9 Mukul Vertna a sales man of the National Arms Stores, proved the taking of the gun into possession by "the police, PW-10 Ram Asrey Pandey is Junior Scientific Officer. Scientific Sec tion, C. I. D. , U. P. Lucknow and PW-11, S. I. Ram Krishan Shukla is the Investigat ing Officer who after completing the in vestigation of the case, submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons. 5. On the other hand the accused perosns denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been implicated falsely in this case due to enmity. 5. On the other hand the accused perosns denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been implicated falsely in this case due to enmity. Their suggestion is that deceased Surendra Pratap Singh was killed in the night and in the morning when the same was detected, then a story was concocted. They also de nied the presence of the witnesses on the spot. 6. On behalf of the defence three wit nesses were examined namely: DW-1 Mohd. Shamim, Registration Clerk proved the entries about execution of a will, DW-2 Ram Bilas, Record Keeper, of the office of Supdt. of Police, proved the previous FIR and DW-3 Bhola Nath Sarin, Junior Engi neer Electricity Board stated that on the date of the incident there was no electricity in the village Raipur. 7. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the prosecu tion has failed to prove the guilt of the accused-persons beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he acquitted the accused-persons of the charges levelled against them as mentioned above. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the State of U. P. preferred the instant criminal appeal before this Court, 9. We have heard the learned Govt. Advocate as well as the learned Counsel for the accused- respondents; Sri Imtiyaz Murtaza, Advocate and have perused the records carefully. 10. The learned Sesisons Judge while acquitting the accused-persons recorded a finding that the prosecution story as dis closed by the eye-witnesses did not get any support from the medical evidence and in fact the medical evidence belies the oral testimony of the eye-witnesses and there fore, the prosecution case is not free from doubt. He also after considering the testi mony of the eye-witnesses recorded a finding that the presence of the eye witnesses is doubtful and therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. 11. Apart from this, the learned Ses sions Judge has also pointed out that the independent witnesses were admittedly present on the spot but no one was exam ined and further the motive as alleged by the prosecution is a very trivial affair and therefore, on the said basis, it cannot be said that the accused could commit such a serious crime. 12. we have also perused the judg ment passed by the trial court as well as record. 12. we have also perused the judg ment passed by the trial court as well as record. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it will be proper to consider the socpe of the State Appeal and for this pur pose para 16 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka, 1997 JIC 1241 (SC), is being mentioned here: "16. This Court has thus explicitly and clearly laid down the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. These principles have been set out in innumerable cases and may be reiterated as under: (1) In an appeal against an order of acquit tal, the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction. (2) The High Court has the power to re consider the whole issue, reappraise the evi dence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse. (3) Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal. (4) In reversing the finding of acquittal the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands for tified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court. (5) If the High Court, on a fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other ma terial on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours of the accused should be adopted. (6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box. (6) The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial Court had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness-box. (7) The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as reasoanble person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused. " 13. Keeping in mind the abovemen-tioncd principles, we will now proceed to consider the merits of the case. 14. According to the FIR accused Ram Achal Singh fired gun-shots three times from his D. B. B. L. gun. In evidence, PW-I Dhur Raj Singh reiterated his stand and stated that accused Ram Achal Singh fired three gun-shots; in cross-examina tion, he further clarified his statement and stated that all the three gun- shots hit the deceased. He stated that when his father received first gun-shot, his mouth was towards northern side and his father did iiot fall on the ground but in the mean time, the second gun-shot hit the abdomen of his father. He further stated that the third gun-shot hit the deceased on his buttock. He also stated that his father fell down on the ground on receiving the sec ond gun-shot. The relevant statement of PW-1 Dhru Raj Singh runs as under: 15. Similarly, PW-2 Lal Behari in ex-amination-in-chief stated that accused Ram Achal fired three gun- shots but in the Court, he clarified his statement and stated that the first gun-shot hit the deceased on the thigh and the second gun-shot hit the abdomen of the deceased and the third gun-shot hit the buttock of the deceased. The relevant statement of PW-2 Lal Be hari runs as under: 16. Similarly, PW-3 Hashim in ex amination in-chief stated that the first gun-shot hit the thigh of the deceased and the second gun-shot also caused injuries to Surendra Pal Singh. In examination-in-chief, he did not say about the third gun shot and similarly, in his cross-examina tion he stated that Surendra Pratap Singh fell down after receiving the second gun shot and thereafter, accused Ram Achal fired third time, but he could not say that the said gun-shot caused injuries to the deceased or not? The relevant statement of PW-3 Hashim in cross-examination runs as under: 17. The relevant statement of PW-3 Hashim in cross-examination runs as under: 17. However, before the Investigating Officer, he stated that accused Ram Achal fired gun-shots three times. From the pe rusal of the oral testimony of these wit nesses, it is clear that accused Ram Achal fiied three gun-shots and all the gun-shots hit the deceased but on the other hand the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased did not find three gun-shots wounds but he found only one gun-shot wound of entry and one gun-shot wound of exit, meaning thereby, according to the medical report, the deceased re ceived only one gun-shot injury. 18. Apart from this, it is also not pos sible that nobody reached the place of the incident at the time of the incident spe cially when the incident took place in day time. PW-2 Lal Behari and PW-3 Hashim stated that they were present on the Flour Mill when the incident took place and they reached there on hearing hue and cry and on an alarm raised by the deceased. Ac cording to the testimony of PW-2 Lal Be hari and PW-3 Hashim, at the time of the incident the Flour Mill was running, it is also not disputed that Flour Mill runs by electric power. However, trie defence ex amined DW-3 Bhola Nath Sarin, Junior Engineer, Electricity Department, Faiza-bad to show that there was no electricity on 5th or 6th May, 1978 due to mechani cal defects in the Transformer and that the electricty was restored in the village only on 7-5-1978. This fact further belies the testimony of PW-2 Lal Behari and PW-3 Hashim who stated that the Flour Mill was running at that time and they got their paddy thrashed on the said date. Apart from this, the evidence of the Ballistic Expert has also not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the Ballistic Expert in his report did not furnish any date on which basis he stated that the empty cartridge alleged to be re covered from the place of the incident, was fired by this gun. The learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, has given cogent reasons in discarding the evidence of Bal listic Expert and we find no illegality in the said finding. 19. The learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, has given cogent reasons in discarding the evidence of Bal listic Expert and we find no illegality in the said finding. 19. PW-1 Dhru Raj Singh in his cross-examination further admits that the daroga reached the hospital before lodg ing of the FIR. This shows that the pollice had already reached the Hospital were PW-11 Ram Krishna Shukla alleged to have prepared the report. The teamed Sessions Judge has also pointed out several discrepancies and infirmities in the state ments of the eye-witnesses and in the investigation. 20. We have also perused all these statements of the witnesses as well as in firmities pointed out by the learned Ses sions Judge and we find no illegality in the same. It is not possible for us to say that these findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are in any way against the evidence on record or there is an other view which can be reasonably taken than the view which has been taken by the lean-red Sessions Judge. 21. Keeping in mind the principles enumerated by die Apex Court in a case of Ajit Savant Majagvai (supra), we are of the opinion that the present criminal ap peal has, no force. In the result, the present criminal ap peal is hereby dismissed. The accused-respondents are on bail. They need not surrender. The bailbonds are cancelled and sureties thereof stand hereby dis charged. Appeal dismissed. .