The present appeal is directed against an order of acquittal of all the three respondents who faced a charge under Section 307, I. P. C. in S. T No. 398 of 1985. The order of acquittal was recorded by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur in S. T No. 398 of 1985 by his order dated 5-8-1986. 2. After admission of the appeal, reports had come about the death of respondents Ram Deo and Raja Ram. The appeal abated so far they were concerned. The matter was, therefore, heard in respect of respondent-Raj Man only. 3. The appeal was once dismissed in limine by an Honble Single Judge by his order dated 22-8-90. The State went up in Criminal Appeal No. 1186 of 1995 together with a Special Leave Petition No. Criminal 1948 of 1994 and the Honble Court remanded the matter with an obser vation that the order of dismissal should have been a reasoned one. There had been a direction to hear the parties and to dis pose of the matter on merits. Accordingly, the present hearing was taken up. 4. The first information report that was lodged at 6. 30 p. m. on 14-11-1984 spoke of an incident of 7 p. m. on 13-11-1984, in which one of the respondents Ram Deo was attributed the role of exhortation while two other respondents-Raja Ram and Rajman were attributed roles of open ing fire from their country made pistols and two persons were allegedly injured. At the trial, the injured persons and certain other witnesses were examined and the learned trial Judge, by this considered judgment, found that there was no doubt gun shot injuries on two injured persons, but the prosecution was required to prove that the incident had taken place in the manner and at the place as stated in the first information report. 5. On discussion of the evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the place of occurrence could not be established or fixed from the evidence. According to the first information report, it was Varandah of a house and witnesses have spoken about traces of blood on the floor. The witnesses have pointed this blood to the Investigating officer but there was no col lection of blood, rather the Investigating Officer had stated that no blood was seen by him. There was also no recovery from that spot of any fired cartridges. The witnesses have pointed this blood to the Investigating officer but there was no col lection of blood, rather the Investigating Officer had stated that no blood was seen by him. There was also no recovery from that spot of any fired cartridges. For these two reasons, the trial Judge has doubted if the incident had occurred at the place where the prosecution asks us to believe that the incident had taken place, iden tification was claimed in the light of lantern that was about 10 feet away from the alleged place of occurrence. If the place of occurrence is doubted, the presence of lantern would be of no avail as that could give light in a near vicinity and not at a place away from that Varandah and absence of bio id and fired cartridges certainly suggests that the incident had taken place elsewhere and identification was not possible. Moreover, the presence of this lantern was not indicated in the first information report. 6. There had been an admitted delay of about 24 hours in lodging the report. There was a primary health centre in the village itself, but the injured were not taken to that primary health centre. The person:, interested in the injured, took them to Gorakhpur for treatment. In that case, they could have taken a chance to lodge a first information report at Gorakhpur itself. When doctor at Gorakhpur found the patients with gun shot injuries, he should have informed the police and action by Gorakhpur Police or such report would have been natural. There is however no material on record in this line. The person who took the injured to the hospital was not examined. The person who was allegedly chatting with two injured at the time of the ocpurrence was also not examined and the Court was left with the statement of injured persons alone. Their testimony no doubt could be relied on, provided the same were beyond doubt. The doubt concerning place of oc currence, presence of lantern together with the delay in lodging the first informa tion report, was a factor which weighed upon the trial Judge and we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Judge in acquitting the respondents. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The doubt concerning place of oc currence, presence of lantern together with the delay in lodging the first informa tion report, was a factor which weighed upon the trial Judge and we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Judge in acquitting the respondents. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Rajman, who is said to be on bail under an order of this Court, is dis charged from the bail bond. Appeal dismissed .