D. K. TRIVEDI, J. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State of U. P. challenging the judgment and order dated 22-12-1979 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, acquitting the accused respondents from the charges levelled against them holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents were prosecuted under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149 I. P. C. 2. According to the prosecution case the incident took place on 21-10-1977 at about 8 a. m. at the tube- well of Munedra Singh in village Hadha Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi. It is said that respondent Ram Swaroop was armed with DBBL gun, Raj Kumar was armed with single barrel gun, respondent Ram Kumar had a gun and respondents Krishna Kumar, Braj Kumar and Sheo Kumar had Lathis in their hands and Sheo Murti was empty handed. It is said that Kareem Darzi had executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Swaroop. It is said that in the said house one Nawab Darzi nephew of Kareem was living and he did not vacate the same. It is said that as Nawab did not vacate the premises, therefore, there was some criminal case relating to arson between Nawab and Ram Swaroop. It is said that in the said case Rudra Baksh Singh (deceased) had stood surety to Nawab and due to this enmity Ram Swaroop bore ill-will against Rudra Baksh Singh. It is said that on the date of incident at about 8. 00 a. m. complainant Yadvendra Pratap Singh along with his father deceased Rudra Baksh Singh reached the tube-well of Munedra Singh. The respondents armed with the weapons as aforesaid, reached there and on the instigation of Sheo Murti, all the three persons namely Ram Swaroop, Ram Kumar and Raj Kumar fired their licensed fire-arms on Rudra Baksh Singh. It is said that the three other respondents who were armed with Lathis started assaulting Rudra Baksh Singh with their respective Lathis. An alarm was raised by the witnesses and on hearing the alarm several persons reached there and on their challenge the accused-respondents ran away. It is further alleged that complainant Yadvendra Pratap Singh also received injuries of fire-arm on his right hand. An alarm was raised by the witnesses and on hearing the alarm several persons reached there and on their challenge the accused-respondents ran away. It is further alleged that complainant Yadvendra Pratap Singh also received injuries of fire-arm on his right hand. As the deceased was lying, therefore a cot was brought and he was placed on the said cot and the complainant proceeded to the Police Station but just in the way Rudra Baksh Singh succumbed to his injuries. The complainant thereafter lodged a written report at Police Station Atrauli the same day at about 12-10 p. m. (noon ). The distance of the Police Station from the place of incident is about eight and a half miles. As the report was lodged in the presence of P. W. 4 S. I. Noor Mohammad, therefore, the investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He immediately prepared the Panchayatnama of the dead body of the deceased Rudra Baksh Singh Ext. Ka-6 and other relevant papers Ext. Ka-7 to Ka-10 and sent the body of the deceased to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses of Panchayatnama and thereafter reached the place of the incident at about 5. 00 p. m. The next day he recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and collected blood-stained and plain earth from the place of the incident. He also recovered empty cartridges Ext. 5 and 6 and prepared site-plan Ext. Ka-12. The Investigating Officer thereafter tried to search out the accused persons but they were not found in their houses. On 2-1-1977 he again visited village Hadha and then he recorded the statement of the complainant Yadvendra Pratap Singh and thereafter on 3-11-1977 he arrested Ram Swaroop, Sheo Kumar, Braj Kumar, Ram Kumar and Sheo Murat. On 29-11-1977 S. O. , B. K. Singh took over the investigation in his hand and after completing the same, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons. 3. The autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 2-10-1977 at about 2. 00 p. m. by P. W.-9 Dr. A. N. Singh, Superintendent District Hospital, Hardoi. The Doctor found the following ante- mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased: (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 5 cm. x 4. 5 cm. x abdominal cavity deep on the right side of abdomen, 7. 5 cm. 00 p. m. by P. W.-9 Dr. A. N. Singh, Superintendent District Hospital, Hardoi. The Doctor found the following ante- mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased: (1) Fire-arm wound of entry 5 cm. x 4. 5 cm. x abdominal cavity deep on the right side of abdomen, 7. 5 cm. below umbilicus at 7 to 8 Oclock position. Wound was circular in shape. Margins were inverted. Slight blackening was present in its upper and inner region. (2) Two fire-arm wounds of exit in an area of 1. 5 cm. x 1 cm. on exit in an area of 1. 5 cm. x 1 cm. on the right buttock upper part. Wound are circular in shape with everted margins. Wound was communicating with injury No. 1. There was a big hole in the ileum of right pelvic bone. (3) Fire-arm wound of exit 0. 5 cm. on the right buttock 5 cm. below injury No. 2. Wound was circular in shape with everted margins. (4) Lacerated wound 6 cm. x 0. 5 cm. x scalp deep on the left side of head 7 cm. above left year. (5) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm. x thickness of the pinna of the left ear placed in the middle of it. (6) Lacerated wound 1. 5 cm. x 1 cm. x skin deep on the left side of face 0. 5 cm. in front of left ear. 4. In the opinion of the Doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, which resulted from injury No. 1. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined ten witnesses, out of them P. W. 1 Yadvendra Pratap Singh and P. W. 2 Rohan are the witnesses of fact. P. W. 3 H. C. , Baij Nath Shukla registered the case and prepared chik report etc. P. W. 4, S. I. , Noor Mohammad conducted the main investigation in this case. P. W. 5 Constable Sheo Bahdur brought the dead body of the deceased to the deceased to the Mortuary for post-mortem examination. P. W. 6 Constable Sant Bali Yadav proved the Malkhana entries, P. W. 7 Constable Ved Prakash Singh brought the articles from the Malkhana to the Court. P. W. 8 Dr. J. K. Verma conducted X-ray of the injured witness P. W. 9, Dr. P. W. 6 Constable Sant Bali Yadav proved the Malkhana entries, P. W. 7 Constable Ved Prakash Singh brought the articles from the Malkhana to the Court. P. W. 8 Dr. J. K. Verma conducted X-ray of the injured witness P. W. 9, Dr. A. N. Singh conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and proved the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-17. , P. W. 10 Dr. Om Mehrotra examined the injuries of Yadvendra Pratap Singh on 21-10-1977 at about 6. 30 p. m. and proved the injury report Ext. Ka-18. 6. On the other hand, the accused persons denied the prosecution case and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. In fact, their contention is that the incident took place in the early hours of the morning and nobody witness the incident. The defence also challenged the presence of the witnesses at the time of the incident and pointed out that the investigation is tainted and does not inspire confidence in this case. 7. The learned Trial Judge after considering the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he acquitted the accused persons. 8. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment and order the State has filed the present Criminal Appeal During the pendency of the appeal. Respondent No. 1 Ram Swaroop and Respondent No. 2 Sheo Murti had died, therefore, the appeal against them stood abated and was dismissed as abated vide order dated. (Sic ). 9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the State as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent Shri J. N. Chaudhari and perused the record. 10. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the State is that the Trial Judge has committed an error in believing the testimony of the two eye-witnesses specially one of them namely Yadvendra Pratap Singh was the injured witness and his presence on the spot cannot be doubted. The learned Counsel for the State further tried to explain the infirmities pointed out by the Trial Judge saying that these minor entries are not fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Counsel for the State further tried to explain the infirmities pointed out by the Trial Judge saying that these minor entries are not fatal to the prosecution case. On the other hand, Shri J. N. Chaudhari Advocate Counsel for the respondents, pointed out that the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is a well reasoned judgment and order and he has considered each and every aspect of the case. He pointed out that the Trial Judge while acquitting the accused persons has given cogent reasons and pointed out that the injuries could not be caused by the weapons assigned to the accused persons. He clearly pointed out that the injuries could not be caused by the weapons assigned to the accused persons. He clearly pointed out that it is the case of the prosecution that three of the respondents who were armed with fire arms, had licensed fire-arms and fired on Rudra Baksh Singh deceased from their licensed fire-arms. The Investigating Officer also recovered two of the cartridges on the spot. Inspite of this and the fact that the accused persons deposited their fire-arms in Court the Investigating Officer did not sent them for examination by the Ballistic Expert and therefore, it cannot be said that the injuries were caused by these fire-arms. The learned Counsel for the respondents also pointed out that the nature as well as medical and oral evidence as well as other infirmities clearly show that the incident took place in the dark hours of night and the witnesses were not present. The learned Trial Judge while acquitting the accused persons clearly recorded a finding of fact that the accused persons had no motive to commit this crime. According to the prosecution case the deceased stood surety for Nawab and due to this Ram Swaroop respondent bore-ill will against Rudra Baksh Singh deceased but it is proved that the deceased was not surety for Nawab in the said case. 11. As regards the question of weapon used in the incident, it is the consistent case of the prosecution from the stage of the First Information Report that the three accused persons who were armed with fire-arms, were armed with license guns. It is also alleged by the prosecution that two empty cartridges were found by the Investigating Officer on the spot and admittedly the said cartridges were standard ones. It is also alleged by the prosecution that two empty cartridges were found by the Investigating Officer on the spot and admittedly the said cartridges were standard ones. In view of the prosecution case that the fire-arms which were used in the incident were the licensed guns, therefore, the accused persons at the time of their surrender moved an application that their guns be sealed and be kept in Court because they apprehended some mischief by the Police persons. It is also alleged by the accused persons that the prosecution case that they used their licensed guns, therefore, the Police might need the guns for Ballistic Experts opinion and, therefore, they were depositing the guns in Court. The Court allowed their application and directed that the guns be kept in sealed cover. The learned Trial Judge also at the time of trial recorded a finding that all the three guns as well as the recovered cartridges were standard ones. However, it is surprising that inspite of the fact that the accused persons deposited their guns in Court saying that their guns might be needed by the Police for Ballistic Experts opinion and the Police did not think it proper to send these guns to the Ballistic Experts opinion. The accused persons while surrender themselves, moved an application denying their participation and saying that their guns will be needed for Ballistic Experts opinion, therefore, in these circumstances in not sending the weapons for Ballistic Experts opinion a doubt arose about the use of their guns in the incident. The prosecution has failed to give any explanation about non-sending of the guns to the Ballistic Experts specially when the guns as well as the cartridges both were available to the Investigating Agency. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the circumstances and the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that these guns were used in the incident in question and, in our opinion, there is no illegality in the said finding. The learned Trial Judge also discussed the manner of assault and thereafter took a view that the injuries could not be caused by these guns. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering this aspect of the case has, considered in detail all the circumstances and the evidence on record and we find no illegality or perversity in the said findings. 12. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while considering this aspect of the case has, considered in detail all the circumstances and the evidence on record and we find no illegality or perversity in the said findings. 12. Apart from this, the Doctor A. N. Singh, P. W. 9 further admits that the deceased had not eased himself, in the morning. The Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found stool in the large intestines and this shows that the deceased had not eased himself in the morning. The Doctor also found brownish thin fluid in the stomach of the deceased which indication that the deceased would have taken some thin fluid, like tea etc. before his death. On the basis of these facts, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the defence theory that the incident took place in the early morning, cannot be ruled out. Apart from this the Doctor further stated that at least two bottles of blood must have oozed out from injury No. 1 of the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that within 15 minutes of the incident deceased Rudra Baksh Singh had been put on a cot but surprisingly enough, no blood was found on the cot. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that there was nothing on the cot and it was a bare cot and nothing had been spread over it. The Doctor also states that the blood coagulates in four hours and in view of the above mentioned statements, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the incident must have taken place in the early hours of the morning and atleast the above mentioned facts create doubt the incident alleged to have taken place at about 8. 00 a. m. 13. The learned Trial Judge, further while considering the question of motive, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive part of the case. On the other hand, it is alleged on the basis of the various defence papers that the motive, if at all it was there, it was for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused persons. According to the prosecution case, in the case filed against Nawab and others under Section 436 I. P. C. deceased Rudra Baksh Singh was surety for Nawab. According to the prosecution case, in the case filed against Nawab and others under Section 436 I. P. C. deceased Rudra Baksh Singh was surety for Nawab. The defence has filed surety-bond as Ext. Kha-1 to Kha-3 showing that for Nawab Beg the sureties were Bedhab and Prabhu. The accused also filed Ext. Kha-1, showing that in the same case, P. W. 2 Rohan was one of the sureties for Samsher Singh. The above mentioned papers clearly show that the motive part alleged by the prosecution is totally a false one. In the case under Section 436 I. P. C. it is alleged that Nawab Beg set fire to the house and according to the prosecution, Nawab Beg was present at the time of the present occurrence. If Nawab Beg was present, then Nawab Beg would have been shown to be the person to be attacked and not Rudra Baksh Singh, who even, accepting the prosecution case, stood surety for Nawab. 14. Apart from all the above mentioned facts, the investigation in this case is also tainted and does not inspire confidence. According to the prosecution case, two empty cartridges were recovered by the Investigating Officer, P. W. 4 S. I. , Noor Mohammad stated that he reached the scene of occurrence at about 8. 00 p. m. on 21-10-97. Two Constables namely Shyam Lal and Sheo Murat were already there and he was also informed that two empty cartridges were lying on the spot. He also admits that he himself had seen the said two cartridges but did not take them into his possession or prepared any recovery memo on 21-10-1977. He also admits that he made no mention of the two empty cartridges in the Case Diary. The Investigating Officer admittedly had a torch in his possession and he also made some entries about the closure of the investigation etc. in the torch light, therefore, in these circumstances, it is possible to believe that the two empty cartridges if really were there on the spot, then the same were not recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day. According to the Investigating Officer, he prepared the recovery memo on the next day i. e. 22-10-1977 and in these circumstances, the learned Court below, in our opinion, committed no illegality in raising doubt about the recovery of empty cartridges. 15. According to the Investigating Officer, he prepared the recovery memo on the next day i. e. 22-10-1977 and in these circumstances, the learned Court below, in our opinion, committed no illegality in raising doubt about the recovery of empty cartridges. 15. As pointed out above the prosecution case from the very beginning is that the accused persons used their licensed fire-arms. The accused persons admittedly moved an application before the Court saying that as the Investigating Officer is alleged to have recovered two empty cartridges on the spot, therefore, they suspect some mischief by the Police and in these circumstances they deposited their fire-arms in Court, but the Investigating Officer did not send these weapons to the Ballistic Expert for opinion. It is also surprising that P. W. 4 S. I. Noor Mohammad had made no attempt on his part either to make search of the house of the accused to recover the guns or to arrest them on 21-10-1977 itself, but even then he did not record the statement of the complainant at the Police Station itself. According to him he recorded the statement of the complainant on 2-11-1977 and there is no proper explanation on the record as to why he delayed the recording of the statement of the complainant in this case. 16. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused respondents has also shown some doubt about the genuineness of the First Information Report. According to the Trial Judge the chik F. I. R. Ext. Ka-2 is in two leaves. On the first page there are columns and on the second page or on the reverse side written F. I. R. has been reproduced. The third page was left blank and on the fourth page again some portion of the F. I. R. has been written. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the third page of the chik report was left blank. Apart from this P. W. , 4 S. I. Noor Mohammad himself has stated that when he reached the scene of occurrence, he found two Constables already there on the spot. This also shows that the information had already been received much earlier than the registration of the case. Apart from this, the learned Sessions Judge also discussed in detail the evidence of the two P. Ws. This also shows that the information had already been received much earlier than the registration of the case. Apart from this, the learned Sessions Judge also discussed in detail the evidence of the two P. Ws. and after considering the statements of these two eye witnesses recorded a finding that the testimony of these two witnesses cannot be believed. He disbelieved the oral evidence regarding the place of the incident well as pointed out that the witnesses are interested witnesses and while scrutinising the evidence of these two eye-witnesses, recorded a finding of fact that the testimony of P. W. 2 Rohan as well as P. W. 1 Rudra Baksh Singh does not inspire confidence and the same cannot be believed for convicting the accused-respondents. 17. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence of the prosecution in great detail and the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The view taken by the Trial Judge is also correct one and we also perused the testimony of the two eye-witnesses and found that the reasonings given by the learned Sessions Judge for disbelieving their testimony are valid reasonings. 18. In these circumstances the present State appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly the State appeal is dismissed. The accused-respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal dismissed. .