Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. These two appeals and the criminal revision are directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif dated 31st July, 1989 in Sessions Trial No. 325 of 1988. Criminal Appeal No, 423 of 1989 has been preferred by Satyendra Singh who has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 1989 has been preferred by Arjun Singh who has been sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal Revision No. 728 of 1989 has been preferred by informant Sharnbhu Singh, P.W.3, against the acquittal of the remaining six accused persons. No appeal has been preferred by the State against the acquittal of the said opposite parties in the criminal revision. 2. An occurrence is said to have taken place at village Laluadih within the jurisdiction of police station Harnaut at about 10 a.m. on 4th of September, 1987 in which Binod Singh son of the informant Shambhu Singh, P.W.3, is alleged to have been killed by the eight named accused persons who came variously armed with fire arms and other weapons, which was witnessed by the informant as well as other witnesses. Soon after the occurrence, the informant, P.W.3, along with Chandrika Singh, P.W.1, and Dharamdeo Singh, P.W.4, left for Police Station Harnaut to lodge a report. The said police station is at a distance of about 18 kms. from the village of occurrence. As it appears from the evidence of the informant, P.W.3, they first crossed the river by boat and thereafter they waited for a train at Karauta. Since they could not get a train immediately, they proceeded to Harnaut in a trailor. On reaching the police station they found that the Officer-Incharge was not there, but when the Officer Incharge P.W.9, Sub-inspector Vijay Kumar Yadav, came there at about 3 p.m., Shambhu Singh, P.W.3 lodged his report which was witnessed by the other two witnesses, namely, Chandrika Singh, P.W.1 and Dharamdeo Singh, P.W.4. On the basis of the said report, a formal first information report was drawn up and P.W.9 took up investigation and proceeded to the village of occurrence at about 3.30 p.m. He reached the village of occurrence at about 7.15 p.m. and recorded the statements of witnesses. On the basis of the said report, a formal first information report was drawn up and P.W.9 took up investigation and proceeded to the village of occurrence at about 3.30 p.m. He reached the village of occurrence at about 7.15 p.m. and recorded the statements of witnesses. He also prepared the inquest report and a sketch plan of the place of the occurrence. P.W.9 handed over investigation of the case to Ram Pravesh Singh, Officer Incharge who only submitted a charge sheet in the case. 3. In his report, Shambhu Singh, P.W.3, stated that at about 10 a.m. he along with his sons Bharat Singh, P.W.2 and Binod Singh, (deceased) was sitting in his dalan. Binod Singh, (deceased) proceeded towards his house saying that he was going to take his meals. By the time he reached near the darwaja of Uchit Singh, the eight named accused persons, out of whom, six were armed with fire arms while Kishun Singh and Bhagwat Singh were armed with Bhalas chased his son. Binod Singh started running away. The informant and his son Bharat Singh, P.W.2 came out of the dalan. Bhagwat Singh (acquitted) ordered his men to kill all the three persons. Appellant Arjun Singh fired from behind at his son Binod Singh which hit him on his head, and thereafter appellant Satyendra Singh also fired at him. On receiving fire arm injuries on his head Binod Singh fell down. Thereafter all the accused persons started firing at the informant and his son indiscriminately. To save themselves they jumped into the ditch nearby and were successful in saving themselves. When other villagers started assembling, the accused persons ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by Dharamdeo Singh, P.W.4, Chandrika Singh, P.W.1 and Lalla Singh, P.W.7. The motive for the occurrence was that on the earlier evening his son Binod had a quarrel with appellant Satyendra and they had slapped each other. There was also land dispute between them. 4. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to prove its case. P.W.3 Shambhu Singh is the informant while P.W.2 Bharat Singh is his son. The other three eye witnesses are Chandrika Singh, P.W.1, Dharamdeo Singh, P.W.4 and Lalla Singh, P.W.7, Rama Kant Singh, P.W.5 is a witness to the inquest report. Dr, Ram Pratap Singh conducted a post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3 Shambhu Singh is the informant while P.W.2 Bharat Singh is his son. The other three eye witnesses are Chandrika Singh, P.W.1, Dharamdeo Singh, P.W.4 and Lalla Singh, P.W.7, Rama Kant Singh, P.W.5 is a witness to the inquest report. Dr, Ram Pratap Singh conducted a post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Sub-Inspector Vijay Kumar Yadav, P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. The other Investigating officer to whom P.W.9 handed over charge is Ram Pravesh Singh, P.W.8 who it appears only submitted a charge sheet in the case. P.W.10 I. Akada was required to produce the material exhibits in the case, but he stated that those material exhibits had been destroyed by rain and floods, and were not available. 5. The trial Judge relying upon the testimony of the informant Shambhu Singh, P.W.3 and his son Bharat Singh, P.W.2 found the appellants guilty and sentenced them as earlier noticed. He however, held that the remaining three eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7 may have not witnessed the actual occurrence as they were sitting inside the dalan of P.W.7, and as stated by P.W.4 came out only on hearing the gun shot. He further held that the facts of the case did not establish the participation of the remaining six accused persons who are said to have indiscriminately fired at the informant P.W.3 and his son P.W.2. These two witnesses had received no injury whatsoever and he, therefore, gave to them the benefit of doubt. 6. Counsel for the parties have taken us through the entrie evidence on record and we have carefully read the evidence of all the witnesses examined at the trial. 7. I shall first consider the evidence of the witnesses who have been relied upon by the trial Court. Dr. Ram Pratap Singh, P.W.6, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased deposed that on 5.9.1987 he was posted as the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital at Biharsharif and at 3 p.m. on that day he held post mortem examination on the dead body of Blnod Singh, deceased aged about 30 years. He found following ante mortem injuries on his person. "1. One circular gun-shot wound of 1/2" diameter with blackened, margin on the back of the head. This was wound of entry. Occipital bone was fractured. 2. He found following ante mortem injuries on his person. "1. One circular gun-shot wound of 1/2" diameter with blackened, margin on the back of the head. This was wound of entry. Occipital bone was fractured. 2. One lacerated wound on the left ear of size 1 1/2" x 1" x brain deep. Brain matter was coming out. Temporal bone was fractured. This was wound of exit." On dissection he found that the occipital bone was fractured. The occipital, parietal and temporal lobes of the brain were lacerated. The temporal bone was found fractured. In his opinion, the injuries were caused by fire arm may be rifle, and the time that elapsed since death was between 30 to 36 hours. The injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to him, injury no.1 was wound of entry while injury No.2 was the exit wound. He further opined that the blackened margin of the injury indicated firing from close range may be within six feet. 8 The medical evidence on record, therefore establishes beyond doubt that Binod Singh met a homicidal death and the cause of his death was a gun shot injury suffered by him on the back of his head with the resultant exit wound found on the left ear. The injuries were caused by one shot only. The period that elapsed between the death and the postmortem examination also supports the prosecution case that the occurrence may have taken place at about 10 a.m. on 4.9.1987. 9. The inquest report read with the testimony of Rama Kant Singh, P.W.5 also supports this aspect of the prosecution case. 10. Before adverting to the evidence of eye witnesses, we may refer to the objective findings of the Investigating Officer, P.W.9. He has stated that he had prepared a sketch plan of the place of occurrence from which it appears that the Dalan of the informant is to the north. Adjacent south of his dalan is the dalan of Lalla Singh, P.W.7 and adjacent south thereof is the open land of Uchit Singh followed by the house of Uchit Singh. To the adjacent east of the dalan of the informant is a lane from north to south passing by the side of the dalan of Lalla Singh and the house of Uchit Singh. To the adjacent east of the dalan of the informant is a lane from north to south passing by the side of the dalan of Lalla Singh and the house of Uchit Singh. After the house of Uchit Singh, there is a lane towards the west, but the lane which runs north to south proceeds further to the south, and to the east of the lane is a ditch. On the other side of the ditch, there are some houses. The dead body of the deceased was lying in the lane at a distance of about 75 feet south of the dalan of the informant. The dalan of Lalla Singh, P.W.7 is facing north. The dead body was lying near the south eastern corner of the dalan of Lalla Singh, P.W.7. There was copious blood where the dead body of Binod Singh was lying. The place of occurrence as well as the dalan of Lalla Singh, P.W.7 were visible from the dalan of the informant. He had collected the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared a seizure memo. 11. P.W.3 has deposed that on 4.9.1987 at about 10 a.m. he was sitting with his son Binod, (deceased) and Bharat, P.W.2. Binod left saying that he was going home to take his meals. Soon thereafter he heard the voice of Binod, (deceased), who was raising an alarm saying "run father". Hearing his alarm, he and his son Bharat, P.W.2, ran out and saw that eight persons (accused) were chasing his son from south to north. All of them were armed with fire arms, except Bhagwat Singh and Kishun Singh (both since acquitted) who were armed with bhalas. Bhagwat Singh exhorted his companions to kill all the three father and sons. Thereafter Arjun Singh fired at his son Binod which hit him on the back of his head. Satyendra Singh also fired at his son Binod who fell down. Thereafter all the accused armed with fire arms started Indiscriminately firing at them, and with a view to save themselves they jumped into the ditch towards the east. On hearing the report of gun firing, the villagers assembled and the accused ran away. One day before the occurrence, there was quarrel between Binod (deceased), and Satyendra and they had slapped each other. On hearing the report of gun firing, the villagers assembled and the accused ran away. One day before the occurrence, there was quarrel between Binod (deceased), and Satyendra and they had slapped each other. According to this witness, Chandrika Singh, P.W.1, Dharamdeo Singh, P.W.4, and Lalla Singh P.W.7, had also witnessed the occurrence. After the occurrence, he along with Chandrika Singh and Dharamdeo Singh went to the police station and lodged a report at 3 p.m. Binod Singh, (deceased), had himself reported to him about his fight with Satyendra Singh on the earlier evening and everyone in the village had come to know about that incident. He has further explained how it took time to reach the police station since they had first to cross the river by boat, and thereafter waited for a train at Karauta. Since no train was immediately available, they came by trailor to Harnaut and lodged a report. The witness was cross-examined at length to establish that P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7 belonged to the same family to which the informant belonged, but this has been denied by the witness. He has stated that the place of occurrence was shown to the Investigating Officer when he reached the village at 7.15 p.m. He also showed him the ditch where he and his son had jumped with a view to save their lives. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he heard the alarm raised by his son Binod soon after he left the dalan, may be after half a minute. When he first saw his son, he was running towards north and was in front of the dalan of Uchit Singh. According to his estimate, his son was at a distance of about 40 yards from him towards the south. At that time, the accused were at a distance of about 20 yards from the deceased. Out of them, Satyendra Singh and Arjun Singh were ahead of others. Soon after he saw his son Binod, a shot was fired at him. His son Binod was running when he suffered a gun shot injury. He and his son Bharat ran together, out since the accused started firing indiscriminately, they could not reach the place where his son Binod had fallen, and jumped into the ditch to save themselves. Soon after he saw his son Binod, a shot was fired at him. His son Binod was running when he suffered a gun shot injury. He and his son Bharat ran together, out since the accused started firing indiscriminately, they could not reach the place where his son Binod had fallen, and jumped into the ditch to save themselves. The shot fired by Arjun Singh hit his son from behind, but he could not say definitely whether the second shot fired by Satyendra Singh appellant also hit his son, His son, however, fell down after both the shots were fired. There vyas waist deep water in the ditch and their clothes had become wet. This witness denied the suggestion that there was firing earlier in the day and the shots were fired from Kahartoli. He also denied the suggestion that his son Binod was not of good character and he used to tease the village women. He denied the suggestion that he concocted a false case to implicate the accused. 12. The evidence of P.W.2 Bharat Singh is also to the same effect. He has also deposed that his brother left for taking his meals, and soon thereafter they heard his voice raising an alarm, calling his father for help. He has fully corroborated his father Shambhu Singh and stated about the manner in which the occurrence took place and how they jumped into the ditch to save their lives. This witness has further stated that before the shots were fired, he had noticed Lalla Singh, Chandrika Singh and Dharamdeo Singh, P.Ws. 7,1 and 4 standing in the verandah of Lalla Singh, 13. I have carefully considered the evidence of these two witnesses, namely, Shambhu Singh, P.W.3, the informant, and his son Bharat Singh P.W.2. Though they have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, there is hardly anything significant in their cross-examination which may persuade the Court to hold that these witnesses are unreliable and were not speaking the truth. Their deposition has impressed me as truthful, as they have deposed in the manner in which innocent villagers depose. The distances mentioned by them are at best approximate and mere guess work, and as usually found, innocent villagers have no exact idea about the distance and they give their answers when questioned on mere guess work feeling compelled to give an answer. The trial Court was also impressed by their testimony. The distances mentioned by them are at best approximate and mere guess work, and as usually found, innocent villagers have no exact idea about the distance and they give their answers when questioned on mere guess work feeling compelled to give an answer. The trial Court was also impressed by their testimony. These two witnesses are natural witnesses, and in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, their presence cannot be disputed. It, therefore, appears from their evidence that soon after Binod Singh left the Dalan, they heard the alarm raised by him, and on coming out they saw that Binod was running towards the north being chased by the accused coming from the south. This obviously means that after Binod had proceeded to some distance, 0the accused came from the opposite direction and seeing them Binod also turned around and ran towards his Dalan chased by his assailants. He was shot at from behind and therefore the injury found on the back of his head lends Credence to the case of the prosecution that he was shot at while being chased by his assailants. His dead body was found very near the Dalan of the informant in the lane adjacent east of the dalan. Obviously, the occurrence did not take place at any, other place, but very near the place where these two witnesses were sitting. The evidence of the Investigating Officer further supports the prosecution case that the place of occurrence was visible from the dalan of the informant P.W.3. Copious blood was found where the dead body was lying, and therefore there can be no dispute about the place of occurrence and the point where the deceased fell after receiving the gun shot injury. 14. Much was sought to be made of the fact that the exact words uttered by the deceased while crying for help is differently mentioned by the witnesses. In my view, that is not of much consequence, though P.Ws. 2 and 3 both have stated that Binod was raising an alarm and asking his father to run and help. It was also submitted that the blackened margin of the first injury found on the deceased indicated that the injury was resorted to from very close distance. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was fired at from a long distance. It was also submitted that the blackened margin of the first injury found on the deceased indicated that the injury was resorted to from very close distance. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was fired at from a long distance. The eye witnesses were towards the north while the deceased was being chased by his assailants and he was running towards the north when firing took place. In such a situation, it was indeed difficult for P.Ws. 2 and 3 to give the exact distance between the deceased and his assailants when the firing took place. On such material, it is not possible to hold that the occurrence took place in a different manner than the one alleged by the prosecution. 15. I am, therefore, of the view that the trial Court was justified in relying upon the testimony of these two witnesses for holding that the appellants herein had fired at the deceased and while the shot fired by Arjun Singh hit the deceased, the shot fired by Satyendra Singh may have missed the target. In fact the informant was candid enough to admit that he was not sure whether the shot fired by Satyendra Singh actually hit his son. The conviction of Arjun Singh under Section 302 IPC and that of Satyendra Singh under section 302 IPC is, therefore, justified on the basis of material on record. 16. So far as the remaining accused are concerned, the trial Court has given to them the benefit of doubt. The trial Court has taken into account the circumstance which lend credence to the defence plea that the remaining accused may not have participated in the occurrence. He has firstly held that P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7 may not have actually witnessed the occurrence since they were sitting inside the dalan of P.W.7, and as stated by P.W.4 before the Investigating Officer, they came out only after they heard the report of gun firing. The trial Court was also impressed by the fact that though the prosecution alleged that the accused, six of whom were armed with fire arms, fired indiscriminately at P.Ws. 2 and 3, they were not injured at all. This was also a circumstance which in the opinion of the trial Court raised some doubt about the participation of the other accused persons. 2 and 3, they were not injured at all. This was also a circumstance which in the opinion of the trial Court raised some doubt about the participation of the other accused persons. It has also come on record that the named accused persons belonged to the same family. Accused Bhagwat Singh, Rama Kant Singh and Kishun Singh are brothers. Appellant Arjun Singh is the son of Bhagwat Singh, while appellant Satyendra Singh is the son of Kishun Singh. Satrughan Singh is the son of Ramanand Singh. Similarly accused Krishna Ballabh Singh is the father of accused Amar Singh. Having regard to the tendency of witnesses to falsely implicate innocent persons along with real assailants, the Court is required to examine the evidence on record with caution where the parties are on inimical terms with a view to exclude the possibility ot false implication. While there is considerable force in the argument advanced on behalf of the State and the informant that P.Ws. 1, 4 and 7 could also be relied upon, I cannot say that the view taken by the trial Court, giving to the other accused the benefit of doubt, is either perverse or not based upon the evidence on record. Where two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused, and if in such a case the benefit of doubt is given to the accused by the trial Court, there can be no justification for interference by the appellate Court. In the instant case, the State has not preferred an appeal, but the informant has preferred a criminal revision under section 397 read with Section 401 of. the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a criminal revision filed against a judgment of acquittal, the scope for interference by the revisional Court is even more limited. The revisional Court cannot convert a judgment of acquittal into one of conviction. In appropriate cases, it may order a re-trial provided it is satisfied that the illegality pointed out have vitiated the trial. The mere fact that a view different from the view taken by the trial court, is also possible, is no ground for interference in a criminal revision preferred against an order of acquittal. 17. In appropriate cases, it may order a re-trial provided it is satisfied that the illegality pointed out have vitiated the trial. The mere fact that a view different from the view taken by the trial court, is also possible, is no ground for interference in a criminal revision preferred against an order of acquittal. 17. Having regard to all aspects of the matter, I hold that the prosecution has proved its case as against the appellants herein. The opposite parties in the criminal revision have been given the benefit of doubt, but no ground is made out for interference by this Court in revision. As a result, Criminal Appeals No. 423 of 1989 and 452 of 1989 preferred by the appellants Satyendra Singh and Arjun Singh are dismissed. Criminal Revision No. 728 of 1989 preferred by the informant is also dismissed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. 18. I agree.