JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, C.J. This appeal arises out of judgment of acquittal of Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore dated 27-9-1989 in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1988, Criminal Case No.421/1987. Briefly stated, Rajaram (accused) and complainants are relations. However, prosecution alleges that enmity existed between the two families. In the morning of 21-11-1986, Shriram (deceased) and Radhey Shyam (P.W.1) went to the field for irrigating the same. Two water-pipes were not found there, therefore, they enquired about the same from the accused who was digging in his land nearby. Accused Rajaram asked them to take the water-pipes from his welt. While the deceased was taking out the pipes from the water line, accused hit him with pick-axe. Deceased suffered injuries. He was taken to Ichhawar in bullock-cart and therefrom to Sehore, ultimately to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. Incident took place on 21-11-1986 at 8.30 a.m Deceased died the same day in the hospital. Report of the incident was lodged by Radhey Shyam (P.W.1), brother of deceased, on 22-11-1986 at 11.30 a.m. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. Injuries have been described by Dr. Divya Kishore Satpathi (P.W.15) in document Ex. P15. According to the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury and its complications. Injury was caused by hard and blunt object and homicidal in nature. Duration of death was within 24 hours since post-mortem examination. Injury-1 (P.W.15) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. After completion of investigation, accused had been challaned for offence u/s 302, Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Shirram. He denied commission of offence and stated that complainants intended to take possession of his land, therefore, he has been falsely implicated. As a matter of fact, the deceased died on account of injury by axe. The trial Court makes mention of the material evidence in the case, explains and analyses it before coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge against the accused, therefore, accused deserved to be acquitted of the same. First deficiency, the trial Court finds, is in the lodging of First Information Report. Incident took place on 21-11-1986 at 8.30 a.m. Report of the incident was lodged on 22-11-1986 at 11.30 a.m., that also at the instance of Inspector S.M. Zaidi (P.W.13). There is delay of 27 hours. First deficiency, the trial Court finds, is in the lodging of First Information Report. Incident took place on 21-11-1986 at 8.30 a.m. Report of the incident was lodged on 22-11-1986 at 11.30 a.m., that also at the instance of Inspector S.M. Zaidi (P.W.13). There is delay of 27 hours. The complainants explained that they could not lodge First Information Report because Station House Officer was not available at the Police Station and that they were busy in attending to the deceased. Both these explanations have been rejected by the trial Court, rightly so, because there is no evidence to suggest that the Station House Officer was not available at the Police Station for recording the First Information Report. Shri. S.M. Zaidi (P.W.13) has stated that no such report was made on 21-11-1986. Assuming the Station House Officer was not there, the report could be recorded by Incharge Police Station or in any case, entry thereof could be made in the daily diary. Accordingly, delay in lodging the First Information Report has not satisfactorily explained, giving rise to doubt about genuineness as to the taking place of occurrence as alleged. It is well settled that the First Information Report in a case is of a vital importance. It must be lodged promptly, otherwise possibility of embellishment cannot be ruled out. In this case, there is delay of 27 hours and in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the truthfulness of occurrence has become doubtful. Second ground for acquittal is that the direct evidence is in conflict with the medical evidence. Prosecution case is that while the deceased was removing the water pipes from the water line of the accused; he was assaulted when he was bending facing the ground. From the medical report, the injury is towards the forehead. This kind of injury could not be caused when a person is in bending position. This seems to be right, therefore, the version of Radhey Shyam (P.W.1) cannot be believed though he claims to be eyewitness to the occurrence. Further, presence of Radhey Shyam (P.W.1) at the place of occurrence is doubtful. In case, the incident had happened in his presence, naturally, he would have protested, raised alarm, but he did not react in this fashion, came home where he tells Ramesh (P.W.5) about the occurrence. The deceased should have been brought home by Radhey Shyam after he was assaulted and treated. In case, the incident had happened in his presence, naturally, he would have protested, raised alarm, but he did not react in this fashion, came home where he tells Ramesh (P.W.5) about the occurrence. The deceased should have been brought home by Radhey Shyam after he was assaulted and treated. Further, the story built by the prosecution is of doubtful nature, so are the statements of complainant on this aspect. When Ramesh Kumar and Radhey Shyam go to the place of occurrence, the deceased was not there. He was found at a distance of one and half kilometers near the well lying on a cot where accused was present. Why did he go to that distant place instead of going home? Moreover, accused should have finished him in case he intended to kill him for the motive set-up by the prosecution. Standing of the accused by the side of the deceased displays his innocence instead of involvement. Further, when Ramesh was told by Radhey Shyam (P.W.I) that the accused had hit the deceased on the head and accompanied Ramesh Kumar to the place where deceased was found, there was no reason for Ramesh Kumar to ask the deceased as to what had happened to him. These facts go to show that injury caused to the deceased has not been satisfactorily explained and proved by the prosecution. In the inquest report, there is no mention of the perpetrator of the crime (Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Similarly, in the First Information Report received telephonically from Hamidia Hospital Bhopal, it is mentioned that the injury has been caused by axe. Obviously this information must have been conveyed at the instance of doctor who attended the deceased. Before conveying this information, he must have ascertained the cause from persons attending the deceased. Further, Shobharam (P.W.10) also states that while cutting Babool tree, the deceased suffered injury by axe accidentally. With this kind of evidence, story of prosecution that the deceased was hit by pick-axe has not been proved. The case of the complainants is also that the deceased was hit by pick-axe. This evidence goes contrary to other evidence in the case that injury is by axe. Bloodstains were not found on the pick-axe seized at the instance of accused nor Police attempted to recover axe although this kind of version had come to its notice. The case of the complainants is also that the deceased was hit by pick-axe. This evidence goes contrary to other evidence in the case that injury is by axe. Bloodstains were not found on the pick-axe seized at the instance of accused nor Police attempted to recover axe although this kind of version had come to its notice. Therefore, this evidence does not help the prosecution and the conclusion of the trial Court is acceptable. Third ground considered by the trial Court is the motive for commission of crime. First is that the accused happened to get medically treated the grand mother of the deceased and this was not liked by the deceased on which altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. This does not find place in the First Information Report nor hurling of threat to the deceased by the accused is there. The other motive is that some time back, quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased when the deceased asked the accused for payment with respect to repairs of thresher, which was the common property of both the families. During this time, the accused not only used foul language but also threatened him This fact has not been corroborated by the witnesses. Moreover, it had taken place long back and it is not expected that the accused would entertain ill will against the complainants. Further, on the day of occurrence, the complainants asked for water pipes, which the accused readily gave. All these allegations have not been supported by the prosecution witnesses satisfactorily. Moreover, two witnesses, namely Karan Singh (P.W.2) and Motilal (P.W.3) do not support the prosecution case, although they are stated to have come to the place of occurrence. They have been declared hostile but they have not given any statement favouring the prosecution during their cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, from the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is absolutely clear that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charge against the accused. It is not established that the deceased was killed by the accused. The trial Court has considered the matter quite comprehensively and conclusions drawn after due care and caution. No other view than acquittal of accused could possibly be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not established that the deceased was killed by the accused. The trial Court has considered the matter quite comprehensively and conclusions drawn after due care and caution. No other view than acquittal of accused could possibly be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case. Unless the conclusions of the trial Court suffer from manifest errors, illegality or perversity, appellate Court should not disturb the acquittal recorded by it. Even otherwise, where two views are possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, the appellate Court should not reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court (See Tara Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . Above all, incident took place on 21-11-1986, appeal is being considered after 16 years. When it has been found that the order of trial Court is reasonable and in accordance with the evidence, up-turning the acquittal after 16 years would not be proper exercise of power by the appellate Court. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed