ORDER S.K. Kulshrestha, J. 1. The above appeals and revisions have been filed against the common judgment dated 22.10.1986 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No. 36/86 and Sessions Trial No. 37/86, by which the learned judge has acquitted the respondent Rajendra alias Mexi of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the other respondents of the charge under section 302/34, I.P.C. 2. Both Sessions Trial Nos. 36 and 37 of 1986 arose out of the same incident. Since the respondent Rajendra alias Mexi was said to have absconded, a challan was filed by the police against the other respondents and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which registered It as Sessions Trial No. 36/86. Eventually, a supplementary challan was filed against the respondent Rajendra alias Mexi and the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 37/86 and both the Sessions Trials were tried and disposed of together by the said common judgment of acquittal. The complainant Narayandas Sindhi has, accordingly, filed Criminal Revision No. 26/87 against the acquittal of Rajendra in Sessions Trial No. 37/86 while the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed Criminal appeal No. 279/87 against the said acquittal. The complainant Narayandas Sindhi has filed Criminal Revision No. 27/87 while the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 278/87 against acquittal of the other respondents in Sessions Trial No. 36/86. All these revisions and appeals are, therefore, being decided by this common judgment. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the deceased Shital Sindhi and the respondent accused Rajendra alias Mexi were on enmical terms and earlier an application dated 17.7.1985 had been made to the police station by the deceased Shital Sindhi. On 1.8.1985, at about 8.00 P.M., while the deceased Shital Sindhi after his dinner had come downstairs from his house in Guru Nanak Ward, Gotegaon, and was standing outside, the accused came there and the accused Santosh, Arvind and Prakash abused and said that he was standing there and he be killed. Just then, accused Rajendra alias Mexi fired a shot from his revolver which struck the deceased Shital Sindhi at the middle of the orbital margin on leg side and the deceased fell down. The accused fled from the place. A motor-cycle was parked a short distance away and the accused Santosh and Mexi fled on the said motor-cycle towards their houses. The accused fled from the place. A motor-cycle was parked a short distance away and the accused Santosh and Mexi fled on the said motor-cycle towards their houses. At the time of the incident, in the hotel belonging to the deceased Shital Sindhi, Laxmichand Sindhi, Gyani Rajput, Anil Jaiswal, Nikal Chadar., Ramesh Sindhi and Narayandas were sitting and they witnessed the incident. Narayandas then rushed to the police station and lodged First Information Report Ex.P-1 at 20-15 Hours, which was recorded by P.W.12 G.V. Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police. The Sub Inspector of Police, after registering the offence, proceeded to the spot, where he found deceased Shital Sindhi lying of the Dasa (raised platform in front of the house) and he immediately sent him to the Government Hospital along with requisition Ex.P-14. Shital Sindhi was declared dead by the doctor and, therefore, he registered "Marg" at the place of the incident Itslef, which, on his return to the police station, was recorded as Marg No. 22/85. He then deputed his subordinate staff to search for the accused and proceeded to the spot where he seized blood stained scrappings from the plaster and the ordinary plaster under seizure memo Ex.P-4. Thereafter he proceeded to the hospital and examined the dead body and on 2.8.1985 held inquest and prepared inquest-report Ex.P-3. The body was then forwarded for post-mortem examination under requisition Ex.P-11-A. 4. Dr. B. Santoshi (P.W.9) was posted as Assistant Surgeon at the Primary Health Centre, Gotegaon. On 2.8.1985, he received requisition for post-mortem examination of Shital aged 29 years. He found that there was a wound of entry measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm with irregular margins which were inverted, located on the orbital margin of left eye. The direction of the wound was inward going medially and bruising of peripheral margins was present. On passing probe from the wound of entry, the probe passed upto the cranial cavity on right side base of skull and a bullet of the size 1 cm x 0.75 cm was found in the bone. There was no wound of exit and the bone at right base of skull was fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock as a result of excessive haemorrhage on account of gun-shot injury. The autopsy report given by the doctor is Ex.P-11. 5. There was no wound of exit and the bone at right base of skull was fractured. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to shock as a result of excessive haemorrhage on account of gun-shot injury. The autopsy report given by the doctor is Ex.P-11. 5. The clothes of the deceased were sealed and handed over to constable Pritamsingh who produced two sealed bundles at the police station, which were - seized under seizure memo Ex.P-6. Spot map Ex.P-7 was prepared by Patwari. The seized articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, from where report Ex.P-15 was received. A report Ex.P-16 with regard to the bullet recovered from the body was received from the Assistant Director (Ballistic) of the F.S.L. Sagar. According to the report, it was a deformed lead pellet, which had been fired through a smooth bore weapon. After completion of investigation, charge-sheets were filed and the accused were prosecuted. 6. The accused denied the charges and stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. 7. Learned trial Court, on evaluation of prosecution evidence, acquited the accused. Learned trial Court found that out of the witnesses examined, P.W.6 Laxmichand, P.W.7 Neklal and P.W.8 Rameshchand did not support the prosecution case, while P.W.1 Narayandas, P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani were partisan witnesses whose testimony on close and careful scrutiny did not inspire confidence. According to the learned trial Court they were chance witnesses and in view of the admitted enmity between the parties and the other circumstances demolishing the prosecution case, their evidence not be relied upon. Learned trial court also found that although P.W.2 Anil Kumar was present at the time the investigating officer had come to the spot, statements of eye-witnesses were recorded the next day, for which no satisfactory explanation was offered and the direction of the wound also demolished ocular testimony. The present revisions by the complainant Narayandas Sindhi and the appeals by the State of A.P. have been filed against the said acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The present revisions by the complainant Narayandas Sindhi and the appeals by the State of A.P. have been filed against the said acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State have submitted that the eye-witness account of the incident given by P.W.1 Narayandas P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani was corroborated by prompt F.I.R. and the medical report and there was no reason or ground for the learned trial Court to have discarded the evidence of these witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court has proceeded on assumptions and presumptions in rejecting the testimony of these witnesses on conjectural grounds. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, supported the judgment of acquittal and has stated that the view of the trial Court is based on conclusions derived from the material on record and the judgment of acquittal, therefore, does not call for any interference in the present appeals and revisions. 9. There is no dispute that Shital Sindhi met a homicidal death, of which there is sample evidence in the ocular testimony, the medical report and the inquest held on his dead body. To reiterate, the eye-witnesses viz., P.W.1 Narayandas, P.W. 2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani have testified that Shital Sindhi received a gun-shot injury as a result of which he died. This account rendered by the witnesses is supported by medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. B. Santoshi and the evidence of P.W.12 G.V. Singh who prepared inquest report after registering the unnatural death (Marg). The question, however, is whether the respondents were responsible for the said homicidal death of the deceased Shital. 10. P.W.1 Narayandas, P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani have deposed that at about 8 P.M. they were in the hotel of Shital while Shital had gone to have his dinner and no sooner he returned after dinner and was standing on 'Dasa' outside, the four accused came in front of his house and accused Santosh, Arvind and Prakash shouted that he should be killed and the accused Rajendra alias Mexi fired a shot from his revolver which struck Shital on his left eye and he fell down. They have further deposed that accused Rajendra alias Mexi and Santosh then made their escape on a motorcycle, which was parked a short distance away, while accused Arvind and Prakash went on foot in the other direction. P.W.1 Narayandas went to the police station and lodged report and Shital was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor. 11. P.W.1 Narayandas is the real brother of the deceased Shital. P.W.3 (sic) was his employee as conductor in his tempo and used to sleep in the Vedeo House of deceased Shital and was provided meals also by him while P.W.2 Anil Kumar was running a Vedeo House and was having deelings with the deceased Shital. These three witnesses were anemically disposed towards accused Mexi, as on the report of Mexi, a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the police against P.W.1 Narayandas and P.W.3 Gyani while P.W.2 Anil Kumar had been called by the police and interrogated in connection with the theft of the V.C.R. of the accused Arvind. The witnesses have squarely admitted these facts in their cross-examination. The Supreme Court has held in Ram Ashrti v. State of Bihar (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 942) that interested and partisan witnesses must pass a test of close and severe scrutiny, and in the absence of corroboration it is hazardous to convict the accused on the basis of their evidence. We have, therefore, to examine whether the testimony of these witnesses clears the test of closer scrutiny and is corroborated by other circumstances on record. The learned trial Court has also referred to the testimony of the eye witnesses who have been declared hostile. P.W.7 Neklal has stated that the deceased was sitting alone on a bench and a sound was heard but nobody was seen around. P.W.7 Neklal was working as agricultural labour of P.W.1 Narayandas and was himself interested in Narayandas. He has also been shown to be present at the time of occurrence, in the F.I.R. lodged by P.W.1 Narayandas. P.W.8 Ramesh has also stated that the deceased was sitting alone on a bench and on hearing the sound of a fire, he had come out, but he did not see anyone firing the shot. P.W.8 Ramesh was the real nephew of the deceased Shital. P.W.8 Ramesh has also stated that the deceased was sitting alone on a bench and on hearing the sound of a fire, he had come out, but he did not see anyone firing the shot. P.W.8 Ramesh was the real nephew of the deceased Shital. The testimony of these two witnesses, who have their interest in P.W.1 Narayandas, cannot be lightly brushed aside merely because they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.7 Neklal is a witness named as an eye-witness in the F.I.R. and was working for P.W.1 Narayandas while P.W.8 Ramesh is real nephew of P.W.1 Narayandas. Their testimony rules out presence of P.W.1 Narayandas, P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani on the spot. It has also been pointed out that these witnesses were merely "chance witnesses" as P.W.1 Narayandas has admitted that although he had come to have his dinner, he had not actually had his dinner and was sitting on the counter of the hotel till the incident took place and, til Kumar has advanced the reason for his presence that he had come to take a cassete from the deceased Shital an was sitting there. P.W.3 Gyani has stated that there was a break down in tempo about a Kilometer away from the place and since he had to get it repaired, he had come to the house to tatle money from the deceased Shital and was waiting in the hotel for him. It is therefore, clear that the witnesses claimed to be present purely by chance as otherwise they had no reason to be on the spot at the time of the incident. Another factor that demolishes the testimony of partisan witnesses is the delayed recording of statements of these witnesses by the police. As per the case of the prosecution, the report of the incident was lodged immediately and the police had come to the spot and had sent the deceased to the hospital, but surprisingly, the statements of P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani were recorded on the next day. P.W.2 Anil Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that his statement was recorded at the hotel of Shital and he was alone at that time. Contrary to this statement, P.W.12 G.V. Singh, the Investigating Officer, has stated that he had recorded statements of these witnesses on the next day in the hospital where they had voluntarily come. P.W.2 Anil Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that his statement was recorded at the hotel of Shital and he was alone at that time. Contrary to this statement, P.W.12 G.V. Singh, the Investigating Officer, has stated that he had recorded statements of these witnesses on the next day in the hospital where they had voluntarily come. It was come in the evidence of P.W.12 G.V. Singh that while he was on the spot on 1.8.1985 and had made seizure from the spot, the witnesses Anil Kumar and Gyani, both, were present but he had not recorded their statements then. In G.B. Patel v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1979 SC 135 ) it was observed that where there was delay in recording the statements of witnesses in the given circumstances, it could lead to the conclusion that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation. In the face of the fact that the presence of these three eyewitnesses becomes doubtful in view of the testimony of P.W.7 Neklal and P.W.8 Ramesh and the delayed recording of the statements of P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani, it is hazardous to act on their testimony especially when there is also a reason to suppose that they were mere chance witnesses. The police did not collect evidence with regard to the statement of P.W.3 Gyani about the break down of the tempo and the story that at that hour of the night he wanted to get his tempo repaired also appears quite artificial. 12. In G.B. Patel v. State of Manarashtra (supra), it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the High Court has power to re assess the evidence in an appeal against acquittal and reach its own conclusion yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight to the view of the trial Court as to the credibility of the witnesses and should be slow in distrubing a finding of fact. The said observations contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment read as under- The dictum of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 227 (2) : 61 Ind. App. The said observations contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment read as under- The dictum of the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1934 P.C. 227 (2) : 61 Ind. App. 398) and a bead-roll of decisions of this Court have firmly established the position that although in an appeal from an order of acquittal the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, it should, to use the words of Lord Russel of Killowen -"always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the Trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." Where two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should, as a matter of judicial caution, refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the Court below, in other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal. 13. Applying the above tests laid down by the Supreme Court, we find that the trial Court on closer scrutiny of the testimony of the eye-witnesses P.W.1 Narayandas, P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani has assigned cogent reasons for not relying upon the same. The view expressed by the trial Court appears reasonable as the delay in recording of statements of P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani apart, the eye-witnesses were, admittedly, having an axe to grind against the accused persons and, therefore, a reason to depose falsely against them. The view expressed by the trial Court appears reasonable as the delay in recording of statements of P.W.2 Anil Kumar and P.W.3 Gyani apart, the eye-witnesses were, admittedly, having an axe to grind against the accused persons and, therefore, a reason to depose falsely against them. While it is true that actuated by a desire to take revenge, the brother of the deceased would not allow the real assailants to go unpunished, in the present case, there are circumstances to indicate that the assailant could not be seen with the result, situation could be capitalized to falsely implicate the persons, on whom the suspicion fell on account of past enmity. 14. The learned trial Court has also observed that in the requisition Ex.P-14 sent for examination of Shital, the name of the assailant has not been mentioned and so is the case in the inquest report Ex.P-3 which shows that the name of the assailant was not known till the next day. It is true that if the name of the assailant had been mentioned in these documents, it would have supported the story of the prosecution witnesses, but absence of the name in these documents cannot be construed as demolishing their version. However, since we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions of the learned trial Court, it is not necessary for us to probe into the matter to find other reasons which discredit ocular testimony. We may also refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu (A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 980), wherein it has been held that if two views are possible, the High Court should not substitute its view for that of the Sessions Court. The observations read thus - This demonstrates how the High Court erred in applying the principles which govern appeals against acquittal. There is not the slightest doubt that, at the least, two views of the evidence were reasonably possible. The learned Sessions Judge had taken one view and the High Court should not have substituted its own view for that of the Sessions Court. 15. In the present case, we do not find any room for any another view as the evidence of partisan witnesses has been discarded by the trial Court for cogent reasons. The learned Sessions Judge had taken one view and the High Court should not have substituted its own view for that of the Sessions Court. 15. In the present case, we do not find any room for any another view as the evidence of partisan witnesses has been discarded by the trial Court for cogent reasons. It has also been observed by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2035) that the Court has first to see whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not or that they are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably false. If the said test is applied to the findings arrived at by the trial Court, we find that it cannot be said that the findings suffer from any gross perversity or that they are not supported by evidence on record; indeed the findings are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. 16. It was pointed out before the trial Court that in the F.I.R. Register containing pages from Sr. No. 1 to 50, counter-foil of F.I.R. recorded at S. No. 47 was missing while the F.I.R. of the present case was recorded at page bearing Sr. No. 48. It has, therefore, been contended before us and was so contended before the trial Court that initially, the report of the incident had been recorded at page bearing Sr. No. 47, but later, with a view to falsely implicate the respondents, F.I.R. was recorded at page 48. P.W.12 G.V. Singh, Investigating Officer, has tried to explain that the case to which the F.I.R. recorded at Sr. No. 47 pertains, was of theft and the case had already been filed in the Court. According to his evidence, offence under section 379, I.P.C. had been registered on 1.8.1985 at 12.35 P.M. and the F.I.R. had been forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. However, this witness was unable to give details with regard to any other case pertaining to the offences registered as per the first information reports contained in this book. The learned trial Court has observed that the evidence of P.W.12 G.V. Singh instead of removing suspicion adds to it. However, this witness was unable to give details with regard to any other case pertaining to the offences registered as per the first information reports contained in this book. The learned trial Court has observed that the evidence of P.W.12 G.V. Singh instead of removing suspicion adds to it. A copy of the certified copy of the said F.I.R. has been filed by the applicant Narayandas along with the revision, but we do not find that it bears recital to the effect that the case was registered on 1.8.1985 at 12.35 P.M. On the contrary, it indicates that the F.I.R. was recorded on 31.7.1985 at 20.35 Hours, which clearly falsifies the explanation offered by the Investigating Officer. These suspicious circumstances further add to the doubt about the prosecution stroy as projected through the eye-witnesses. 17. The learned trial Court has also observed that while eye-witnesses have deposed that gun-shot was fired by accused Rajendra @ Mexi by stretching his hand and bending in front, parallel to the ground, the direction in which the bullet travelled in the head indicated an angle of 45 degrees and, therefore, also the version of the eye-witnesses was not true. We are, however, unable to subscribe to this view of the learned trial Court. Obviously, it has been overlooked that the neck has both, axial and radial movement and, therefore merely on account of the statements of the witnesses that shot was fired with hand stretched parallel to the ground, it cannot be inferred that it would not enter and travel in the body at an angle because the angle would depend upon the relative position of the head at the time the shot was fired. 18 In the result, we find that no case is made out calling for any interference in the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court and the consequent acquittal of the respondents. The appeals and revisions are, accordingly, dismissed. The respondents are discharged from their bail bonds. Appeal dismissed