VISHNU SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of U. P. against the judgment and order dated 6-12-1979, passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial No. A-9 of 1979, whereby the five respondents, namely, Balakram, Bhola, Sri Krishna , babu (Baburam) and Ram Sewak have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 307/149, I. P. C. , Balakram, Bhola, sri Krishna and Ram Sewak for the offence punishable under Section 147, I. P. C. and babu for the offence punishable under Section 148, I. P. C. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the prosecution case runs as under : the informant Ranvir Singh P. W. 1 was a resident of village Kurshath, situated within the limits of Police Station Baghauli, District Hardoi. At the time of incident, he was a student of Class Xth in Lal Bahadur shastri High School, at Atwa Alinmardenpur, which was situated within the limits of the said police station. At the time of the incident, respondents Balak Ram and Sri krishna were also students in the said school. In Sept. 1976, respondent Balak ram had borrowed a sum of Rs. 100/- from ranvir Singh and despite repeated demands by Ranvir Singh he did not return, the said money. On 7th January, 1977, when Ranvir singh again demanded money, respondent balak Ram told him that he would pay him the some and asked him to come out of the school. When Ranvir Singh came out of the school, he was assaulted by respondents balak Ram and Sri Krishna with cycle chains. Thereafter, Ranvir Singh raised cries. Some students came there. Then, respondents Balak Ram and Sri Krishna went towards Village Kursath. Ranvir Singh remained near the school beneath a tree. On receiving information , his uncle Chhotelal and Nanhe came from village, to take him home. Consequently, Ranvir Singh left along with them. At about 2. 30 p. m. when they had reached near drain, situated towards east of the school, respondents Bhola and ramsewak armed with lathis, respondents balak Ram and Sri Krishna armed with cycle chains and respondent Babu Ram armed with a country-made pistol came there. They surrounded Ranvir Singh, Chhotelal and nanhe. Thereafter, the respondents armed with cycle-chains and lathies assaulted them. 30 p. m. when they had reached near drain, situated towards east of the school, respondents Bhola and ramsewak armed with lathis, respondents balak Ram and Sri Krishna armed with cycle chains and respondent Babu Ram armed with a country-made pistol came there. They surrounded Ranvir Singh, Chhotelal and nanhe. Thereafter, the respondents armed with cycle-chains and lathies assaulted them. They raised alarm, hearing which brinda Prasad, Gaya Prasad, Sumer, dwarka and Shyamsunder P. W. 3, residents of Village Atwa came. Respondent Bhola instigated respondent Babu, who thereupon fired a shot, which hit Chhotelal. In self defence some injuries were caused to some of the respondents by Nanhe and Chhotelal. ( 3 ) THE F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by Ranvir Singh, the same day, at 10. 35 pm. at Police Station Baghauli. On the basis of the F. I. R. offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/307/323, I. P. C. were registered against the five respondents. The chik F. I. R. was also prepared and its perusal shows that the distance between the place of the incident and Police Station baghauli was ten miles. ( 4 ) THE injuries of Nanhe, Ranvir Singh and Chhotelal were medically examined on 8-1-1977, by Dr. J. C. Gupta, P. W. 7, sometimes in the afternoon. On the person of Nanhe, Dr. Gupta, found one lacerated wound, one abrasion and one contusion. On the person of Ranvir Singh, Dr. Gupta found, two lacerated wounds, two contusions and two abrasions. On the person of Chhotelal, Dr. Gupta found, six lacerated wounds, one swelling and one contusion. In the opinion of Dr. Gupta the injuries of Ranvir Singh were simple in nature, attributable to a blunt weapon, and one day old. As regards the injuries found on the person of Chhotelal, Dr. Gupta found that swelling and two of the lacerated wounds could be caused by fire arm; two lacerated wounds (injury Nos. 1 and 2) could be caused by blunt weapon, one lacerated wound (injury no. 3) could be caused by sharp edged weapon, and the contusion could be caused by blunt weapon. In Dr. Guptas opinion the injuries of Chhotelal were one day old. It is pertinent to mention that the fire arm injuries were kept under observation by Dr. Gupta and he advised that X-ray should be done. The X-ray of the Injuries of Chhotelal was conducted by Dr. In Dr. Guptas opinion the injuries of Chhotelal were one day old. It is pertinent to mention that the fire arm injuries were kept under observation by Dr. Gupta and he advised that X-ray should be done. The X-ray of the Injuries of Chhotelal was conducted by Dr. J. K. Verma P. W. 5, Medical Officer-in-Charge, District Hardoi, on 10-1-1977. The evidence of Dr. Verma shows that he found one circular radio opaque shadow on left ring finger; found phalanx of left finger fractured; and fracture of skull. We feel it pertinent to mention that Dr. Verma also conducted X-ray of Nanhe and found fracture of the left scapula bone. ( 5 ) THE case was investigated in the usual manner and thereafter, the respondents were charge sheeted. ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to mention that in respect of the said incident on the date of the incident itself, at 8. 15 pm. an F. I. R. was lodged by Balak Ram, at Police Station baghauli, wherein a counter version of the incident has been set forth. It is significant to mention that respondents Balak Ram, Sri krishna and Baburam (Babu) also sustained injuries and Dr. Mohan Pal Singh, Medical Officer-in-Charge, primary Health Centre, Hardoi medically examined them on 8-1-1977, at 8. 45 a. m. 9. 00 a. m. . 9. 20 a. m. respectively. On the person of Balak Ram, Dr. Singh found one contusion and two abrasion. On the person of Sri Krishna, Dr. Singh found two abraded contusions and two abrasions. On the person of Baburam, Dr. Singh found two lacerated wounds, three contusions and two abrasions. In the opinion of Dr. Singh, the injuries of the three victims were simple in nature, attributable to a blunt object; and one day old. ( 7 ) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where the respondents were charged and put up for trial. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Three of them, namely, Ranvir Singh, P. W. 1, Chhotelal, p. W. 2 and Shyamsunder P. W. 3 were examined as eye witness. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. During trial, in all, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Three of them, namely, Ranvir Singh, P. W. 1, Chhotelal, p. W. 2 and Shyamsunder P. W. 3 were examined as eye witness. During cross-examination, the suggestion given to them was that Ram Bilas, a cousin of Ranvir Singh had stolen watch of Balak Ram about five days prior to the incident, on the intervention of teachers, the watch was returned to him, the students teased Ram Bilas calling him a thief; Ram Bilas was even teased by them, on the date of the incident, on the date of the incident , respondent Baburam had come to school to take respondent balak Ram to his house, when Balak Ram was going to his house with Baburam and sri Krishan and had reached near the drain, chhotelal, Nanhe, Ramdev, Ram Bilas and ranvir Singh armed with lathi and cyclechains assaulted them and in self defence they caused injuries to Chhotelal and others. The said suggestion, which was also pleaded by Balak Ram, Baburam and Sri krishna in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , was denied by the witness. In defence, respondents Baburam, Balak ram and Sri Krishna examined Dr. Mohan pal Singh as D. W. 1. Through him, they proved their injures. ( 8 ) ). After assessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution and examining the case of both the parties, the learned trial Judge reached the conclusion that it was not safe to accept the prosecution case. The learned trial Judge took the view that since, on the date of the Incident at 1,00 p. m. respondents Balak Ram and Sri Krishna had assaulted Ranvir Singh with cycle chain, the greater probability was that Ranvir Singh and others, would take to aggression. The learned trial Judge took the view that since, on the date of the Incident at 1,00 p. m. respondents Balak Ram and Sri Krishna had assaulted Ranvir Singh with cycle chain, the greater probability was that Ranvir Singh and others, would take to aggression. The learned trial Judge also took the view that since the injuries sustained by respondents Balak Ram, Baburam (Babbu) and Sri krishna were not explained by the informant Ranvir Singh in the F. I. R. it would not be safe to accept the explanation offered by the prosecution in respect of them during trial, in this connection, the learned Trial judge relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mitter sen v. State of U. P. , 1976 SCC (Crl 190 : (1976 Cri LJ 190), wherein the Apex Court has laid down that if in the F. I. R. it is not mentioned that persons acted in exercise of right of private defence and inflicted injuries on the body of the accused, the explanation given by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the injuries during trial cannot be accepted on its face value. ( 9 ) THE learned trial Judge also felt that it would not be safe to accept the testimony of the three eye witnesses examined by the prosecution. In his judgment, the testimony of Ranvir Singh and Chhotelal could not be accepted because they were victims themselves and according to respondents aggressors. The learned Trial Judge also felt that only during trial, they explained the injuries of three of the respondents. As regards, Shyam Sunder P. W. 3, the learned trial Judge felt that he had not seen the incident. He has also furnished reasons for reaching the said conclusion. In short, they are : He was a chance witness, he does not explain the injuries suffered by respondents, and he only heard the sound of firing and did not see any one firing. The learned trial Judge also felt that his evidence was of no help in deciding as to which party was the aggressor because he deposed that when he reached the place of the incident, lathis were being plied from both the sides. The learned trial Judge for plausible reasons furnished in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment has expressed doubts whether any fire arm injury was suffered by chhotelal. The learned trial Judge for plausible reasons furnished in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment has expressed doubts whether any fire arm injury was suffered by chhotelal. We do not want to burden our judgment by reiterating them. ( 10 ) IT should be borne in mind that we are seized of the matter in an appeal against the acquittal where the settled law is that unless the view of acquittal is either clearly unreasonable on facts or vitiated by illegality resulting in failure of justice, the appellate Court would not interfere, despite the fact that left to itself, it would have taken a different view. In our judgment, in the instant case, the view of acquittal recorded by the trial Court was a perfectly reasonable view, in fact the only reasonable view. ( 11 ) IN the result, we confirm the acquittal of respondents Balak Ram, Sri Krishna, bhola, Ramsevak and Babu and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed. .