M. C. JAIN, J. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 24th February, 1977 passed by Sri S. P. Agarwal, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 1974. Eight accused- ap pellants had been tried in the said case. They were 1. Izzatullah, 2. Nanak, 3. Patiram, 4. Laxmi Chand, 5. Prakash Chand, 6. Har Charan, 7. Tukki and 8. Udai Vir. All of them had been charged of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B, IPC to murder Manvir and Prahlad. Izzatul lah, Nanak, Laxmi Chand and Prakash Chand were further charged under Section 148, IPC Patiram, Har Charan, Tukki and Udai Vir were charged under Section 147, IPC. Izzatullah was further charged under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of Manvir, Patiram and Nanak Chand were further charged under Section302, IPC read with Section 149, IPC for the commission of the murder of Manvir. Nanak alone was further charged under Section 307, IPC. Iz zatullah and Patiram were further charged under Section 307, IPC read with Section 149,ipcforattemptingto murder Prahlad. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on 17-6-1974 at about 5 p. m. under-trials were going back to District Jail after the Court cases. Manvir deceased and Prahlad injured were also undertrials who had come from jail that day and were returning. The accused-opposite parties Izzatullah, Patiram and Nanak were also undertrials who had come to the Court and were in the process of returning. The un dertrials Manvir was stabbed by accused opposite party Izzatullah by a knife and was seriously injured. The accused-op posite party Patiram had caught hold of him when Izzatullah stabbed him. The ac cused opposite party Nanak made an at tack on Prahlad by a knife. Prahlad was the uncle of Manvir. A few others including undertrials Khadag Singh (Kharku), Lal Mohammad, Raja Ram (all undertrials) and Mitthan Lal (Constable) sustained in juries in the scuffle which took place inside the police van which was there to take back the undertrials to District Jail. It was parked in front of the southern gate of the Judges Court Compound at Bulandshahr within Police Station Kotwali. A knife was said to have been passed over to Izzatullah by accused-opposite party Prakash whereas his father Laxmi Chand accused- opposite party had allegedly passed over a knife to Nanak accused-opposite party. It was parked in front of the southern gate of the Judges Court Compound at Bulandshahr within Police Station Kotwali. A knife was said to have been passed over to Izzatullah by accused-opposite party Prakash whereas his father Laxmi Chand accused- opposite party had allegedly passed over a knife to Nanak accused-opposite party. These two accused- opposite parties were allegedly there near the police van. These two alongwith remaining accused- opposite parties, namely, Har Charan, Tukki and Udai Vir had allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder Manvir and Prahlad. Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Kotwali by Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 the same day at 5. 45 p. m. Manvir was removed to District Hospital in injured condition but he succumbed to his injuries the same night at 9. 42 p. m. 3. Khadag Singh complained of pain only whereas each of Lal Mohammad, Raja Ram and Mitthan Lal sustained one abrasion. So far as Prahlad was concerned, he sustained a linear abrasion on left side of chest. Manvir had sustained incised wound 4. 5 x 2. 5 cm abdominal cavity deep 7. 5 cm below left nipple and 4 cm away from midline as per injury report of 17-6-1974 of 5. 25 p. m. (Ex. Ka- 2 ). 4. Post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased Manvir was conducted on 18-6-1974 at 3. 10 p. m. He was aged about 35 years. He had sustained a single incised wound on left side of chest which was abdominal cavity deep. His death had oc curred due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the said wound. 5. The investigation was initially con ducted by Civil Police of Kotwali, Bulandshahr but was subsequently taken over by the C. B. C. I. D. It was P. W. 22 In spector Hazoor Ali of C. B. C. I. D. who ultimately submitted charge sheet against all the eight accused- opposite parties. 6. Murder of Manvir was the third in successive murders. It was Chandra Bhan son of Prahlad who was first murdered on 30-10- 1973. The second murder was of Vijay son of Laxmi Chand accused op posite party which was committed on 22-3-1974. The murder of Manvir which took place in this incident was the third. 6. Murder of Manvir was the third in successive murders. It was Chandra Bhan son of Prahlad who was first murdered on 30-10- 1973. The second murder was of Vijay son of Laxmi Chand accused op posite party which was committed on 22-3-1974. The murder of Manvir which took place in this incident was the third. The prosecution case was that there had been a long drawn litigation and enmity between Prahlad and Laxmi Chand who were close ly related as descendants of one common ancestor and were residents of village Surjawali, Police Station Shikarpur, because of election of village Pradhan, a Rasta and Chak of Karan of the same village. When Chandra Bhan son of Prahlad was mur dered on 30-10- 1973, its report was lodged by Manvir deceased against Laxmi Chand, his sons Vijai and Prakash Chandra and certain others who were prosecuted. In the murder case of Vijai son of Laxmi Chand which took place on 22-3-1974, the ac cused were Prahlad Singh P. W. 1, his brother Munshi Lai, Manvir, Bharat Lal and some others. The prosecution alleged that the murder of Vijai was avenged in the present incident by Laxmi Chand and his son. The undertrials kzatullah, Patiram and Nanak had allegedly been hired to commit the murder of Manvir and Prah lad. A criminal conspiracy had allegedly been hatched with three others, namely, Har Charan, Tukki and Udai Vir accused-opposite parties to achieve the goal. The said criminal conspiracy allegedly took place inside jail in May/june 1974. 7. At the trial the prosecution ex amined 28 witnesses besides relying on documentary evidence. Babu Ram Jailer was examined as CWI. Accused opposite parties also examined Buniyad Ali and Dularey Lal as D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 respec tively in their defence. The defence case as gleaned from the record was that there had been a scuffle at the Havalat between un dertrials on the one hand and the police personnel on the other. Accused opposite parties also examined Buniyad Ali and Dularey Lal as D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 respec tively in their defence. The defence case as gleaned from the record was that there had been a scuffle at the Havalat between un dertrials on the one hand and the police personnel on the other. In the scuffle, one of the armed policemen used his rifle fixed with bayonet which hit the deceased Man vir who died as a result of incised wound caused on his chest by the bayonet and to save the police, a false story had been cooked up using Prahlad P. W. 1 who availed the opportunity to falsely rope in his enemies Laxmi Chand as also his other associates and well-wishers. 8. On appraisal of the material and evidence on record the learned trial Judge did not find the case to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He, therefore, ac quitted all the accused- opposite parties by the impugned judgment which has been assailed by the State through this appeal. 9. We have heard learned AGA in support of this appeal and Sri P. N. Mishra learned Counsel for accused-opposite par ties. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record. 10. It may be stated before proceed ing further that the main accused-opposite party Izzatullah who allegedly murdered Manvir by stabbing died sometime in 1982 as per the report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, on record. Therefore, we are presently concerned only with the remain ing seven Accused- opposite parties. 11. Taking up the evidence regarding the criminal conspiracy first, we find that the prosecution relied on the testimony of Prahlad Singh P. W. 1, Satya Pal P. W. 4 and Kharku P. W. 6 in this behalf. There is also an inspection note dated 5-9-1976 of the then I Additional Sessions Judge, Sri A. P. Mittal who had visited the District Jail the place of alleged criminal conspiracy. Ac cording to the Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 it was on 7-6-1974 that the conspiracy took place in the office of Babu Ram Jailer. Satya Pal P. W. 4 also spoke about such factum of conspiracy. At that time, Prahlad Singh P. W. 1, Manvir and Tukki were lodged in jail. Ac cording to the Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 it was on 7-6-1974 that the conspiracy took place in the office of Babu Ram Jailer. Satya Pal P. W. 4 also spoke about such factum of conspiracy. At that time, Prahlad Singh P. W. 1, Manvir and Tukki were lodged in jail. Prakash, Nanak, Udai Vir, Har Charan and Laxmi Chand had allegedly come to the office of Babu Ram Jailer where Izzatullah, Nanak, Patiram and Kharku had been called. As per the state ment of Prahlad Singh P. W. 1, Kharku had come to the Court that day with him from Jail and had informed him that a conspiracy was on for his murder and that of Manvir. Kharku P. W. 6 stated that he refused to be a party to the criminal conspiracy and spoke about it to Manvir and Prahlad Singh P W. 1. However, it appears from the inspection note prepared by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge after visiting the jail that the barracks in which the various undertrials including the said witnesses were detained were neither visible from the alleged place of conspiracy nor any person could be seen sitting in the office of the Jailer. To be short, the evidence of the witnesses was negatived by the inspection note prepared by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Moreover, the jail record did not support the theory that any of the accused- op posite parties, namely, Prakash, Nanak, Udai Vir, Har Charan and Laxmi Chand had entered the jail on the said date. There is presumption about the correctness of the entries in official record unless proved to the contrary by trustworthy evidence. Moreover, Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 admitted in his statement before the Court that he had come to know about the criminal conspiracy to murder him and Manvir on 7-6-1974 through Kharku (Khadag Singh ). He must have informed Manvir about it. It is strange that none of the two took any action to bust thesaidcriminalconspiracy. Kharkup. W. 6is a jailbird of criminal antecedents and he had been there a number of times being involved in a number of cases of variety including dacoity. Moreover, this witness stated that it was after 2-1/2 or 3 months of the settle ment of the method the murder in conse quence of criminal conspiracy that the present incident took place. W. 6is a jailbird of criminal antecedents and he had been there a number of times being involved in a number of cases of variety including dacoity. Moreover, this witness stated that it was after 2-1/2 or 3 months of the settle ment of the method the murder in conse quence of criminal conspiracy that the present incident took place. Obviously, it does not reconcile with this part of the evidence of Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 that the criminal conspiracy had been hatched in the office of Babu Ram Jailer on 7-6-1974. It would be recalled that the incident took place on 17-6-1974. On giving our thoughtful consideration, we are of the firm opinion that the evidence of hatching of alleged criminal conspiracy adduced by the prosecution was too weak and incon sistent to be believed. The learned trial Judge rightly disbelieved the same. 12. Now, we take up the question of alleged handing over of the knives by Prakash Chand to Izzatullah and by Laxmi Chand to Nanak near the police van as also about the actual incident. The prosecution case is that before departure from Collectorate Havalat all the undertrials includ ing 1zzatullah, Nanak and- Patiram had been searched and no arm, knife, etc. had been found to be with any under trial and that before boarding of the van by any of the undertrials, the policemen had boarded and searched it out. The case as set up in the first information report lodged by Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 is t hat when the undertrials including himself came to the curve (Maud), Laxmi Chand and Prakash Chand gave knives to Nanak and Izzatullah respectively. He does not say that these knives had been concealed in some towel etc. His version is also to the effect that when they handed over the knives, they were in closed condition. Satya Pal P. W. 4 did not specifically say that the knives had actually been given by Laxmi Chand and Prakash to Nanak and Izzatullah respectively. He only stated that they gave something to Nanak and Izzatul lah. Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 admitted that the knives in question (Ex. 9 and 10) could not be concealed in closed fists. Satya Pal P. W. 4 did not specifically say that the knives had actually been given by Laxmi Chand and Prakash to Nanak and Izzatullah respectively. He only stated that they gave something to Nanak and Izzatul lah. Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 admitted that the knives in question (Ex. 9 and 10) could not be concealed in closed fists. On the other hand, the testimony of Kharku P. W. 6 was that the knives handed over to Izzatullah and Nanak were wrapped in towels when they boarded the van. His statement was also the effect that the knives were open but covered by towels. Thus, it is obvious that the evidence regarding the handing over of knives by Laxmi Chand to Nanak and by Prakash to Izzatullah is not consis tent. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the knives were concealed inside the van before the undertrials boarded it. It cannot be speculated as to who was responsible for the same. As regards the stabbing of Manvir by Izzatullah, the theory of criminal con spiracy having failed because of having not been substantiated, it could be his individual act. As mentioned in earlier part of the judgment, Izzatullah has died and as such it would be futile to look into this aspect of the matter. Indeed, it admits of no doubt that Manvir had been stabbed. None of the other injured including Prahlad sustained any in jury of knife. The prosecution case is that Prahlad Singh P. W. 1 was assaulted by Nanak accused- opposite party by wielding a knife. But the fact is that Prahlad Singh P. W1 only received linear abrasion which could be caused by friction against hard surface. Naturally there must have been scuffle amongst the under-trials immediately after the stabbing of Manvir by Izzatullah, as everyone must have been mindful to save his own life as a natural instinct. At the sudden stabbing of Manvir by Izzatullah, everyone inside the van would have been taken a back and those inside the van and around could collect their wits only after lapse of a few moments. It was most likely that in the melee following the stabbing of Manvir by Izzatul lah, Prahlad Singh P. W 1, undertrial Lal Mohd. , undertrial Raja Ram and Con stable Mithai Lal also received injuries. 13. It was most likely that in the melee following the stabbing of Manvir by Izzatul lah, Prahlad Singh P. W 1, undertrial Lal Mohd. , undertrial Raja Ram and Con stable Mithai Lal also received injuries. 13. We may refer with advantage to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sethu Madhavan Nair and others v. State of Kerala, 1974 SCC (Cri) 774, which should be followed by High Court in reversing the order of acquittal in appeal. It has been ruled that in appeal against the acquittal the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. The High Court should give proper weight and considera tion to such matters as (1) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the wit nesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of doubt and (4) the slowness of the appellate Court in disturb ing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the wit nesses. If two conclusions can be based upon the evidence on record, the High Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal. It would follow as a corollary from this that if the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is not un reasonable, the occasion for reversal of that view would not arise. 14. On a holistic consideration and on scrutinising the evidence on record, we come to the conclusion that the view taken by the learned trial Judge was justified that the prosecution case had not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by him cannot be flawed. 15. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal filed by the State against the impugned judgment of ac quittal recorded by the lower Court. We hereby dismiss this appeal. The accused op posite party Izzatullah has already died. Remaining accused-opposite parties, name ly, Nanak, Patiram, Laxmi Chand, Prakash Chand, Har Charan, Tukki and Udai Vir are on bail. They need not surrender. The per sonal bonds and bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged. 16. We hereby dismiss this appeal. The accused op posite party Izzatullah has already died. Remaining accused-opposite parties, name ly, Nanak, Patiram, Laxmi Chand, Prakash Chand, Har Charan, Tukki and Udai Vir are on bail. They need not surrender. The per sonal bonds and bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along-with the record of the case be immediately sent to the Court below for incorporating necessary entries in the concerned register under intimation to this Court within two months positively. Appeal dismissed. .