M. C. JAIN, J. The State has come up in appeal against the judgment and order passed by Sri C. P. Singh, the then VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra on 17-7-1981 in Sessions Trial No. 618 of 1979, acquitting the accused respondent Nandu alias Nand Kishore of the charges under Sections 302 I. P. C. and 4/25 of Indian Arms Act. 2. The incident took place on 26-4-1979 at about 9. 15 p. m. in Mohalla Nagla Prithvi Singh, P. S. Shahganj, District Agra. The F. I. R. was lodged on 26-4-1979 at 9. 30 p. m. by Babu Nath. The deceased was Ram Gopal. The incident occurred at the spur of the moment on account of trifle grievance over the purchase of certain articles from the shop of Mohan Sindhi running a grocery shop in Mohalla Nagla Prithvi Nath. The complainant Babu Nath (brother of the deceased) and his brother Ram Gopal (deceased) as also Vedu, Sala of the deceased, had gone for making purchases of certain articles from that shop. At that time, some other customers were also present there. Mohan Sindhi was transacting his business with his customers. Ram Gopal asked Mohan Sindhi to give him Boora worth Re. 1/ -. Nandu accused claimed priority from the shopkeeper for the purchase of Namkeen as ordered by him. Ram Gopal insisted that he was present there since before his arrival and he deserved to be given priority and that he would take the article demanded by him first. Nandu was equally adamant in claiming preference. Hot words were exchanged between the two. Ram Gopal asked Nandu not to abuse him in filthy words. Instantaneously, Nandu took out a knife and gave a blow to Ram Gopal in his chest. Receiving the injury, Ram Gopal dropped on the ground. Vedu, brother-in-law (Sala) of Ram Gopal, tried to apprehend Nandu but he was also given a knife blow by him (Nandu) in his abdomen. There was sufficient light of electricity at the spot illuminating the scene of occurrence and the area around it. There were other shops also which were open at that time and business was being transacted there. Witnesses Mankay, Govind Ram, Kalu and others raised alarm and chased Nandu who took to his heels and made his escape good. Both the injured were lying on the road with profused bleeding. There were other shops also which were open at that time and business was being transacted there. Witnesses Mankay, Govind Ram, Kalu and others raised alarm and chased Nandu who took to his heels and made his escape good. Both the injured were lying on the road with profused bleeding. They were taken to the police station on a rickshaw. Babu, real brother of Ram Gopal, accompanied them to the police station. The report of the incident was lodged and the case registered. The injured Vedu and Ram Gopal were sent to the District Hospital, Agra through police constables. Dr. S. P. Mishra, P. W. 2 examined the injuries and prepared the injury report on 26-4-1979 at 9. 45 p. m. The injury sustained by him was stab wound 3/4" x 1/2", depth could not be probed due to haemorrhage, on the front of left side chest, 4" below and inner to left nipple and 1-1/2" outer to mid line of the chest. It could have been caused by knife. X-ray was advised and injury was kept under observation. Duration was fresh. All the efforts to save the life of the victim did not yield fruitful result and he eventually succumbed to his injury at about mid-night intervening between 30-4-1979 and 1-5-1979 in Sarojini Naidu Hospital, Agra. 3. Ram Gopal died as a result of injury sustained by him while he was on his way to the hospital. 4. The investigation followed. 5. The post-mortem over the dead body of Vedu was conducted on 1- 5-1979 at 4. 30 p. m. by Dr. L. N. Sharma P. W. 8 and that on the body of Ram Gopal by Dr. S. C. Srivastava on 27-4-1979 at 3 p. m. Suffice it to say that both had sustained stab wounds which were responsible for their death. The accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 27-4-1979 at 3. 30 p. m. at Bodla Crossing. On search, a blood stained knife was recovered from his person which was sealed on the spot. 6. The defence of the accused was of denial and of false implication. He also denied the recovery of knife from him. According to him, S. O. Onkar Singh had challaned his father several times against which he had protested. He had told the S. O. that he would report his highhandedness to the higher authorities. 6. The defence of the accused was of denial and of false implication. He also denied the recovery of knife from him. According to him, S. O. Onkar Singh had challaned his father several times against which he had protested. He had told the S. O. that he would report his highhandedness to the higher authorities. The S. O. took ill of it and threatened that he would see him. He was, thus, falsely implicated in this case. 7. At the trial, the prosecution examined Constable Babu Ram P. W. 1, Dr. S. P. Mishra P. W. 2, Govind Ram P. W. 3, Complainant Babu Nath P. W. 4, Prem Sagar P. W. 5, I. O. Onkar Singh P. W. 6, Uma Shankar Verma P. W. 7, Dr. L. N. Sharma P. W. 8, Dr. S. C. Srivastava P. W. 9, Head Constable Rajendra Singh P. W. 10 and Constable Bhu Deo P. W. 11. Out of them, Govind Ram P. W. 3 and complainant Babu Nath P. W. 4 were the witnesses of fact. Prem Sagar P. W. 5 was the witness of the recovery of knife from the accused. As the prosecution evidence did not find favour with the trial Judge, he recorded acquittal which was challenged by the State through this appeal. 8. We have heard Sri S. K. Pal, learned A. G. A. and Sri Tejpal from the side of accused respondent. 9. The submission of learned A. G. A. is that the trial Court fell in error in disbelieving the trustworthy eye- witness account and also ignoring the recovery of blood stained knife from the accused respondent a few hours after the incident. There was, according to him, sufficient light at the spot to enable the witnesses to recognise the assailant (accused respondent) who was known also to them from before. Therefore, the acquittal is wholly unmerited. On the other hand, Sri Tejpal has tried to support the finding of acquittal. According to him, no reliance could be placed on the eye-witnesses as also on the alleged recovery of knife which was emphatically denied by the accused respondent. His contention is that the accused respondent was falsely implicated in the case. It is also his submission that the appeal was admitted by the learned Single Judge in contrary to the Rules of the Court-Chapter V Rule 2 (vii) (b ). 10. His contention is that the accused respondent was falsely implicated in the case. It is also his submission that the appeal was admitted by the learned Single Judge in contrary to the Rules of the Court-Chapter V Rule 2 (vii) (b ). 10. At the initial brunt of the matter, we wish to deal with the last argument of the learned counsel for the accused respondent. True, this appeal was admitted by the learned Single Judge Honble P. N. Bukshi, J. on 6-5-1982. It is, however, to be pointed out that sub-rule vii (b) of Rule 2 of Chapter V was amended on 22-11-95 published in U. P. Gazette, Part 4 dated 29-11-1995, providing that from an order of acquittal in respect of an offence for which the maximum punishment is either life imprisonment or death, the appeal shall be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench. Earlier thereto, such an appeal could be dealt with at the admission stage by a Single Judge. It, thus, comes out that the Honble Single Judge could admit the appeal earlier to such amendment which was effected in 1995. Therefore, admission of appeal by Honble Single Judge on 6-5-1982 was perfectly in order. We also find that by an application. Sri Tejpal had challenged the admission of appeal on the ground of its having been admitted by Honble Single Judge, but his such application was rejected by Honble S. I. Jafari, J. on 13-5-87. He did not go up against such order. We are clearly of the opinion that in the instant case the admission of appeal on 6-5-1982 by Honble Single Judge does not suffer from any legal defect. The hyper technical objection raised by Sri Tejpal is wholly untenable. Further, the appeal is now being decided by a Division Bench. Therefore, judged from any angle, there is no miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused respondent. The argument of learned counsel for the accused respondent against the admission of appeal by Single Judge is rejected. 11. Now we come to the merits of the appeal. Further, the appeal is now being decided by a Division Bench. Therefore, judged from any angle, there is no miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the accused respondent. The argument of learned counsel for the accused respondent against the admission of appeal by Single Judge is rejected. 11. Now we come to the merits of the appeal. In our considered opinion, it was wholly unjustified for the trial Judge to have concluded that the report of the incident had been lodged by Babu Nath, eye- witness, P. W. 4 on 28-4-1979 on the basis of a stray sentence spoken by him in his cross-examination that he had reached police station Shahganj on 28th at 11 a. m. and had then put his signatures thereon on that day. It is to be noted that the F. I. R. of the incident was lodged by oral narration on 26-4- 1979 at 9. 30 p. m. He had first taken Ram Gopal and Vedu (victims) on a rickshaw to police station Shahganj where the report was lodged by him by oral narration. From the police station, the two victims were sent to the hospital through constables. Vedu was medically examined by Dr. S. P. Mishra PW 2 on 26-4- 1979 at 9. 45 p. m. Ram Gopal had died while on his way to the hospital. The statement of H. C. Rajendra Singh PW 10 was there that Babu Nath had brought both the injured at the police station at 9. 30 p. m. on 26-4-1979 and had lodged the F. I. R. by oral narration, whereafter the two victims were sent through constables Babu Nath and Shyamveer to the hospital. Babu Nath PW 4 could barely make his signatures. The factum of the F. I. R. having been lodged by oral narration spoke about its genuine character. The injured persons could have not been sent by the police to the doctor until the F. I. R. had already been lodged at the police station. The intrinsic evidence to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the F. I. R. having been lodged on 26-4-1979 at 9. 30 p. m. was there. On wholesome consideration of the testimony of Babu Nath PW 4 examined in the light of medical examination of Vedu the same night at 9. The intrinsic evidence to prove the authenticity and genuineness of the F. I. R. having been lodged on 26-4-1979 at 9. 30 p. m. was there. On wholesome consideration of the testimony of Babu Nath PW 4 examined in the light of medical examination of Vedu the same night at 9. 45 p. m. as also the statements of Babu Ram PW 1 and H. C. Rajendra Singh PW 10 (Babu Ram PW 1 having taken the injured to the hospital and H. C. Rajendra Singh PW 10 having written the F. I. R. on oral narration of the informant with the preparation of G. D. and sending the injured to the hospital), there was no scope for branding the F. I. R. to the ante-timed. 12. It was equally inconsequential that there was no history of bad relations between the two victims and the accused respondent. The instances are not wanting where serious crimes are committed over trifle grievances as in the present case that the deceased Ram Gopal and accused respondent exchanged hot words at the spur of moment over the issue of getting priority in making purchases from the shopkeeper and enraged, the accused respondent stabbed Ram Gopal as also Vedu when the latter tried to intervene. 13. The incident had taken place in thickly populated area with a number of shops nearby and there is no manner of doubt as spoken by the eye-witness is that there was sufficient light at the spot. The Investigating Officer also seized bulbs which were illuminating the scene. The place of incident had several other shops which were also open. The availability of light under such circumstances was natural. 14. The two eye-witnesses, namely, Govind Ram P. W. 3 and Babu Nath P. W. 4 supported the prosecution case in all the material particulars. They had no enmity whatsoever with the accused respondent which could actuate them to falsely implicate him. The name of Govind Ram P. W. 3 finds place in the prompt F. I. R. lodged by Babu Nath P. W. 4, brother of the deceased. To explain his presence at the spot, Govind Ram P. W. 3 stated that he too had gone for some purchase from the shop of Mohan Sindhi grocer when he witnessed the incident. He had even given a chase to the accused respondent unsuccessfully who made his escape good. To explain his presence at the spot, Govind Ram P. W. 3 stated that he too had gone for some purchase from the shop of Mohan Sindhi grocer when he witnessed the incident. He had even given a chase to the accused respondent unsuccessfully who made his escape good. His house was situated 10 or 15 paces away from Prithvi Nath Mandir where the shop of incident was situated. There was plausible cause for the presence of Babu Nath P. W. 4 also as he too had gone to purchase Goor worth 50 paise from the shop of Mohan Sindhi. Vedu (victim) was brother-in-law (Sala) of Ram Gopal and they had gone together to make purchase. This witness used to live in the same house in which Ram Gopal was residing but had separate kitchen. Of course, he was related to the deceased, but that could be no ground to reject his testimony which inspired judicial confidence. He would naturally be interested in ensuring that the real culprit is punished and not screened. Evidence of close relatives of the victim of a crime cannot be doubted on the ground that their deposition was partisan. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion unnecessarily. 15. Learned counsel for the accused respondent also urged that Mohan Sindhi was an important witness but was not produced by the prosecution. It is common knowledge that generally the people keep themselves away from the Courts unless it is inevitable as they do not want to invite trouble for themselves. The testimony of the two eye-witnesses had the ring of truth and central core of their testimony remained intact that over a trifle issue, the accused respondent first stabbed Ram Gopal and then Vedu when he tried to intervene taking side of his brother-in-law (Ram Gopal ). Natural variations in the statements of truthful witnesses are always to be there. Variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details and use of different words in the narration of the incident relating to inessential parts would not detract from the authenticity of the testimony. The trial Judge, in our view, also baselessly doubted the arrest of the accused respondent the same night by the Investigating Officer at about 3. Variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details and use of different words in the narration of the incident relating to inessential parts would not detract from the authenticity of the testimony. The trial Judge, in our view, also baselessly doubted the arrest of the accused respondent the same night by the Investigating Officer at about 3. 30 a. m. from Bodla Crossing while he was trying to board a truck which did not stop at his signal rendering him panicky on spotting the police. On being arrested, the knife (weapon of offence) was recovered from him and on chemical examination, it was found to be blood stained, though blood stains were disintegrated. There was a public witness also of recovery, namely, Prem Sagar P. W. 5 who well explained his presence that he used to work in Jagaran Kirtan Mandali and was returning home when the police, making investigation in the case, took him with them. He clearly stated that no case was pending against him in those days. There was no basis to brand him as a pocket police witness. The accused respondent could not show any enmity with the recovery witness Prem Sagar P. W. 5 either. 16. We regret to note that the approach of learned trial Judge was as if he was fumbling and searching for excuses to back the unjustified finding of acquittal recorded by him. It goes without saying that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. In an appeal against acquittal, the powers of the High Court in dealing with the case are as extensive as of the trial Court. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. It has to be remembered that letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. The prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense and must grow out of the evidence. 17. We are firmly of the opinion that in the present case there was not the slightest doubt that the accused respondent stabbed two persons to death over a trivial issue. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense and must grow out of the evidence. 17. We are firmly of the opinion that in the present case there was not the slightest doubt that the accused respondent stabbed two persons to death over a trivial issue. On the basis of evidence adduced at the trial no other view is possible excepting that the sole accused respondent committed this serious crime of double murder by stabbing. The F. I. R. was promptly lodged by the brother of the deceased by oral narration. He as well as the other eye-witness Govind Ram P. W. 3 (named in the F. I. R.) had no enmity with the accused respondent to falsely implicate him. There was sufficient light at the spot to facilitate the witnesses to recognise him whom they saw committing this crime from close range and whom they knew from before. He was arrested a few hours after the incident with the weapon of offence while trying to board a running truck and there was an uninterested public witness, namely, Prem Sagar P. W. 5 about the recovery made from him. He committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. as well as of Section 4/25 of Indian Arms Act for having been found in possession of a knife of prohibited size without any licence. The finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge is liable to be reversed. 18. For the foregoing discussion, we allow this appeal and reverse the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. We convict the accused respondent Nandu alias Nand Kishore for the offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. for double murder of Ram Gopal and Vedu and under Section 4/25 of Indian Arms Act for having been found in possession of a knife of prohibited size without licence. We sentence him to undergo life imprisonment for the former offence and three years rigorous imprisonment for the latter. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. He is on bail. 19. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve out the sentences passed against him. He shall send compliance report within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Appeal allowed. .