JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Vide this judgment, we shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 324-DBA of 1995 (State of Haryana v. Shiela alias Surinder and others) and Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1995 (Sajjan Kumar v. Shiela alias Surinder and others) as both arise out of one and the same impugned judgment. 2. The three respondents herein namely Shiela alias Surinder son of Raghbir, Dharam alias Dharambir son of Gordhan and Gordhan son of Ram Rachhpal, all residents of village Samchana, were booked in a case FIR No. 78 of 9.4.1992, under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sampla, for committing the murder of one Sumer of their village. All the three respondents have earned acquittal vide impugned judgment dated 23.12.1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. State of Haryana has preferred the present Appeal No. 324-DBA of 1995 against their acquittal which stands admitted by this Court vide order dated 4/8/1995. Criminal Revision filed by the complainant FIR lodger Sajjan Kumar, was also ordered to be heard with the State appeal. 3. It would be pertinent to mention here that before we could hear the main appeal on merits, a miscellaneous application bearing No. 14641 of 2004 was moved by one of the respondents namely Dharambir alleging therein that he had joined the Army as a Sepoy on 31.7.81 and was discharged on 30.11.1999 as such on the date of occurrence i.e. 9.4.1994 (9.4.1992 ?) he was on leave and under the Army Act, an Army man on leave is considered to be on active service. It was further alleged that no proceedings under the Court Martial were initiated or gone through and as such whole of the trial stands vitiated. It is then alleged that this plea was not raised at the trial on account of ignorance as he did not disclose this fact to his counsel during the trial. A prayer was made on behalf of Dharambir respondent that this proposition of law be considered during the disposal of the present appeal. 4. It is then alleged that this plea was not raised at the trial on account of ignorance as he did not disclose this fact to his counsel during the trial. A prayer was made on behalf of Dharambir respondent that this proposition of law be considered during the disposal of the present appeal. 4. After giving notice to Advocate-General, Haryana, the said application stands dismissed by us by a separate order of the even date observing therein that the application is misconceived for the reason that the Judicial Magistrate had taken all due precautions of informing the Military authorities about the pendency of the case against Dharambir accused. Insomuch so that two letters are also on the judicial file received from the Military authorities showing that Dharambir is to be tried as per civil law. It was thereafter that the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Now, we advert to the facts of the present case. 5. Sumer Singh son of Neki Ram is the deceased. He was of the age of about 75/80 years at the time of occurrence i.e. 9.4.1992. 6. Gordhan and Raghbir are real brothers. Shiela alias Surinder is son of Raghbir. Sajjan Kumar PW4 is the first informant in this case who is son of Sumer (since deceased). He made his statement Ex.PN to ASI Daya Ram PW6 (At the time of evidence promoted as SI) on 9.4.1992 when he was present in Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, alleging therein that he is resident of village Samchana and engaged in cultivation. In the year 1988, a fight had taken place in the fields because of old enmity between them and Gordhan etc. In the fight one Kali Ram was murdered and eight persons had received injuries. Consequently, a case was registered against them under section 302 Indian Penal Code with Sampla police. It is then alleged that he alongwith Kanwal Singh, Hari Singh, Ishwar, Kartar son of Sarup, Kartar son of Ram Dia, Ram Chander, Rajbir, Sukhbir, Sumer Singh and Sarup Singh were challaned in that case. All the accused alongwith the complainant were convicted in that case on 28.11.91 and they were released on bail by the High Court about 3-1/2 months prior to the present occurrence. However, Hari Singh was not granted bail. All the accused alongwith the complainant were convicted in that case on 28.11.91 and they were released on bail by the High Court about 3-1/2 months prior to the present occurrence. However, Hari Singh was not granted bail. It is then alleged that on 9.4.92, he alongwith his father Sumer Singh (since deceased) were returning from their fields to their house and when they reached near the well of Jogiwala, Hari Ram son of Harke Jat and Raghbir son of Bhool Singh, Khati met them on the way and he started talking with them and Sumer Singh, his father, proceeded to his house. It is then alleged that at about 10.00 AM, when Sumer Singh reached near the house of Gordhan respondent, the latter took him in his grip from backside and said "it is proper time to take the revenge of previous feud." Thereupon Shiela @ Surinder respondent who was armed with a lathi and Dharam son of Gordhan who was armed with knife also reached there. Surinder gave a lathi blow on the wrist of left hand of Sumer Singh and Dharam son of Gordhan gave 5/6 knife blows to Sumer Singh which hit him on his head, right temple, chest, near the left nipple and left hand. Sumer Singh had fallen down while raising a noise BACHAO, BACHAO. It is then alleged that the complainant and the aforesaid two persons namely Hari Ram and Raghbir immediately reached the spot but all the three assailants fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. Sumer Singh injured was removed to CHC, Sampla from where he was referred to MCH Rohtak where he was declared dead. 7. ASI Daya Ram PW5 made an endorsement Ex.PN/1 at 1.35 PM and thereafter ruqa was sent for the registration of the formal FIR which was registered in Police Station Sampla. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on the same day at 4.30 PM at his residence through Sri Niwas Constable No. 616 who has tendered his affidavit Ex.PJ to this effect. The Investigating Officer then prepared the inquest report Ex.PE. The post-mortem report of the dead body of Sumer Singh is Ex.PC. In the meantime Inspector Ishwar Singh PW7, SHO of police Station Sampla also reached the Medical College Hospital at 2.30 PM. He was apprised of the facts of the case and thereafter the investigation was taken over by him. The Investigating Officer then prepared the inquest report Ex.PE. The post-mortem report of the dead body of Sumer Singh is Ex.PC. In the meantime Inspector Ishwar Singh PW7, SHO of police Station Sampla also reached the Medical College Hospital at 2.30 PM. He was apprised of the facts of the case and thereafter the investigation was taken over by him. He alongwith other police officials went to the place of occurrence at village Samchana. He summoned certain witnesses and inspected the spot. The blood-stained earth was picked up vide recovery memo Ex.PO. Rough site plan Ex.PT was also prepared at the spot. Clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession. On 11.4.92, Shiela alias Surinder was produced before him by certain villagers. He was formally arrested. On 12.4.92, he suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PR stating therein that he had kept concealed a lathi in his Kotha of Tura and it was to his exclusive knowledge. On 13.4.92, the lathi Ex.P6 was recovered in pursuance of the said disclosure statement which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PQ. The other legal formalities including rough sketch of the lathi was also done at the spot. The other two respondents namely Dharambir and Gordhan were formally arrested on 15.4.92. On 16.4.92 in pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.PY, Dharambir got recovered a knife which he had kept concealed. The same was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PS and other legal formalities were also carried out in this respect. The clothes of the deceased, blood-stained earth picked up from the spot and the knife were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban. The wearing apparels and the earth were found to be stained with human blood, whereas knife did not indicate any blood, Ex.PL is the report of FSL in this regard. 8. After completion of the entire investigation, the present three respondents were challaned. 9. All the three respondents were charged by the trial Court under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Sumer Singh. 10. In order to support its case, the prosecution has in all examined seven witnesses. 11. Dr. 8. After completion of the entire investigation, the present three respondents were challaned. 9. All the three respondents were charged by the trial Court under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Sumer Singh. 10. In order to support its case, the prosecution has in all examined seven witnesses. 11. Dr. S.C. Nawal, PW1 while posted as Casualty Medical Officer, M.C.H. Rohtak on 9.4.92, had sent ruqa Ex.PA at 11.15 AM to the Incharge, Police Post, M.C.H. Rohtak regarding the receipt of the dead body of Sumer Singh in Emergency Ward. 12. Ravinder Parkash PW2 has prepared the scaled plan Ex.PB of the place of occurrence. 13. Dr. R.N. Yadav PW3 has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Sumer Singh on 10.4.1992 at 1.00 PM and found the following injuries on his person :- 1. A wound with regular margins, reddish brown obliquely placed over the vertex measuring 5 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep clotted blood present around the wound. 2. Another similar wound measuring 12 cm. x 1 cm. 1 cm. left to injury No. 1. Margins were irregular and reddish brown on the left parietal region. 3. A wound with regular clean cut margins over the right parietal region of the scalp in the sagital plane measuring 3 cm. x 1.5 cm. into bone deep 6 cm. from the midline, and 12 cm. from the right pinna. 4. A wound with irregular margins 2 cm. anterior to injury No. 3 measuring 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. and 11 cm. from the right pinna. 5. A wound with irregular margin 4 cm. x 1 cm. over the right parietal region of the scalp 3 cm. right to midline and 11 cm. from external occipital protuberence. 6. A wound with regular margins over right mastoid region obliquely placed measuring 4 cm. x 0.5 cm. 3 cm. above the right mastoid process. 7. A wound with irregular margins over left zygomatic arch obliquely placed 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. 6 cm. from the lateral angle of left eye ball. 8. There was a stab would transversely placed on the anterior lateral aspect of the right side of chest wall in the anterior axillary line 13 cm. from the midline and 11 cm. from the apex of axilla. Reddish brown margins present. x 0.5 cm. 6 cm. from the lateral angle of left eye ball. 8. There was a stab would transversely placed on the anterior lateral aspect of the right side of chest wall in the anterior axillary line 13 cm. from the midline and 11 cm. from the apex of axilla. Reddish brown margins present. On dissection of the injury right pleural cavity was full of blood. On probing the wound, track was present anterior and downwards reaching to pleural cavity and a corresponding stab was also present on the right side of the lower lobe. Kurta and baniyan also had corresponding cuts. On Kurta, there was 2.7 cm. cut 24 cm. below the upper first colour button. On Baniyan a cut of the same size was present 16 cm. below the colour of baniyan on right side. 9. Fracture of both bones of left fore arm at their distal one fourth was present. 10. A defence wound over thinner eminence of left hand in the form of would with clean margins measuring 1.5 cm. x 2.5 cm. 11. A reddish brown abrasion 1.2 cm. x 1.5 cm. on the lateral side of the lower right forearm. 12. A reddish brown abrasion 7 cm. x 5 cm. on the right fore arm 2 cm. below the injury No. 11. 13. A reddish brown abrasion of 2.5 cm. x 1.5 cm. 2 cm. above injury No. 11. 14. Fracture of proximal phalanex of right fourth finger. On removing the scalp, there was a heamatoma of size 12 cm x 10 cm. over the left parietal region and left temporal region. 14. According to the opinion of this witness the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the injuries which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between the injuries and the death has been observed as 24 hours and between death and post-mortem examination from 6 to 48 hours. 15. PW4 is Sajjan Kumar son of the deceased who is otherwise complainant-FIR lodger. He has reiterated his initial statement Ex.PN made before ASI Daya Ram PW6. Hari Ram PW5 is another eye-witness of the occurrence who has also corroborated the statement of Sajjan Kumar. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has given up another eye-witness Raghbir as having been won over. PW4 is Sajjan Kumar son of the deceased who is otherwise complainant-FIR lodger. He has reiterated his initial statement Ex.PN made before ASI Daya Ram PW6. Hari Ram PW5 is another eye-witness of the occurrence who has also corroborated the statement of Sajjan Kumar. However, the learned Public Prosecutor has given up another eye-witness Raghbir as having been won over. The other witnesses namely Kanwal Singh and Kartar Singh in whose presence the weapons of offence were recovered have also been given up as unnecessary. 16. We need not enter into detailed discussion of the investigation done by ASI Daya Ram PW6 and another Investigating Officer Ishwar Singh PW7 has been discussed by us in the preceding paras. 17. The stand taken by all the three respondents is of false implication asserting that the occurrence had taken place any time after midnight and that Dayanand son of Hariya and Jaipal son of Jage had informed Sajjan Kumar PW that his father was lying injured and unconscious. Thereafter Kanwal Singh who is cousin of Sajjan Kumar and is in police service came to the village on that day and in connivance with the police foisted the present case upon the respondents by converting the blind murder into an eye version account. It is then asserted that Sumer Singh (since deceased) was of the age of 85 years and he had stopped going to the fields during those days. It is then said that Sajjan Kumar PW was of aggressive nature and was having enmity with many others in the village. So far as Dharambir respondent is concerned, it is specifically said that since he was in army service, he has been falsely implicated by the complainant side to spoil his career. 18. In defence, the respondents produced one Hari Kishan DW1 to the effect that he knew Hari Ram son of Jarke who is a witness in this case as his field adjoins the fields of Hari Ram and that Gordhan respondent had given beatings to Hari Ram about 3-1/2 years prior to the present occurrence and he had separated them. 19. Abhe Ram DW2 has made a statement to the effect that Gordhan and Hari Ram had quarrelled and he had also separated them. 19. Abhe Ram DW2 has made a statement to the effect that Gordhan and Hari Ram had quarrelled and he had also separated them. Daya Nand DW3 has made a statement to the effect that at about 3.30 AM in the morning, he had seen a person lying in an injured condition near the pond. He was unconscious. Since he was having torch light in his hand, he saw that the injured was Sumer Singh Jat of his village and he knew him personally. It is then stated that Jaipal his cousin was also with him and then he went to inform Sajjan Kumar the son of Sumer Singh and thereafter Sajjan came alongwith him and Sumer Singh was shifted from the said place. He has further stated that he told everything to the police which had visited the village on the following day at 8/9 AM. 20. Sukhbir Singh Draftsman DW4 has prepared another site plan Ex.PX of the place of occurrence on 30.11.1994. 21. After appreciating the entire evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted all the three respondents. State of Haryana being dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal has preferred the present appeal. As stated above, the complainant has also filed a revision against the said impugned judgment. 22. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Sheokand, learned Assistant Advocate-General, representing the State of Haryana assisted by Mr. T.P.S. Mann, Advocate learned counsel for the revisionist-complainant Sajjan Kumar. All the three respondents are being represented by Mr. U.D. Gaur and Mr. R.P. Bhasin. With the assistance rendered by both the sides, we have also gone through the entire record very minutely. 23. We have also perused the entire impugned judgment especially from Para No. 17 onwards where the trial Court has entered into the discussion while doubting the prosecution case. 24. Mr. Sheokand submits that the respondents have been acquitted by the learned trial court mainly on the following four grounds :- 1. The occurrence has not taken place at 10 AM on 9.4.1992 as alleged by the prosecution but much prior to it. 2. Interested witnesses are examined to unfold the prosecution case; 3. Conduct of the witnesses is not trust-worthy; 4. Investigation is tainted one; 5. Recoveries from the accused are also not trust-worthy. 25. The occurrence has not taken place at 10 AM on 9.4.1992 as alleged by the prosecution but much prior to it. 2. Interested witnesses are examined to unfold the prosecution case; 3. Conduct of the witnesses is not trust-worthy; 4. Investigation is tainted one; 5. Recoveries from the accused are also not trust-worthy. 25. Attacking the impugned judgment, the learned State counsel submits that there cannot be any dispute about the time of the occurrence which is at about 10 AM and the observation of the learned trial Court that it had occurred much prior to it is uncalled for as the learned trial Court has in fact doubted the quickness of the complainant side in removing Sumer Singh to the hospital. 26. He further submits that the distance from the place of occurrence to Sampla is about 7 kilometres and the distance from Sampla is about 25 kilometres. The total distance, thus, comes to about 32 kilometres. The case of Sajjan Kumar PW4 is that immediately after the occurrence, Sumer Singh (since deceased) was shifted to Sampla Hospital in a tractor with the help of Raj Singh and from there he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak where he was declared dead. Ruqa Ex.PA indicates that Sumer Singh was brought dead at 1.15 AM. From this the learned State counsel contends that the complainant side was in a hurry to take the injured for immediate medical aid without wasting any time and as such they could cover the distance of about 30/32 kilometres within 75 minutes on a tractor. 27. The learned State counsel has submitted that another ground which has weighed with the Court is that while injured was being taken from Samchana to Sampla in a tractor, Hari Ram and Ranbir Singh had not accompanied the injured in the same tractor and even while going to the Civil Hospital Sampla, the police station fell on their way and at least anybody out of them could go to the Police Station to lodge the report. He submits that even this observation of the learned trial Court is perverse. He submits that even this observation of the learned trial Court is perverse. Maybe that Hari Ram and Ranbir had not gone alongwith Sajjan Kumar to the hospital but they were justified in not reporting the matter to the police thinking that the complainant himself would lodge the report with the police being son and thereafter they could join the investigation and there is nothing unnatural in it. He thus contends that even if while going to CHC Sampla for medical aid to Sumer Singh, the matter is not reported to the Police Station Sampla which fell on the way, there is nothing unnatural in it as the first priority of Sajjan Kumar PW4 who was accompanied by Rissal, Raj Singh and Sher Singh in the tractor was to save the life of Sumer Singh instead of reporting the matter. The main concern was to take care of Sumer Singh in order to save his life and as such he was immediately taken to MHC Rohtak as referred by the doctor of CHC Sampla and when he was declared dead at 11.15 AM, the matter was reported to ASI Daya Ram at 1.35 PM. If all the above facts are taken collectively, it can be safely said that there cannot be any dispute about the timing of occurrence as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses nor any time has been wasted by Sajjan Kumar in reporting the matter to the police, the learned State counsel so contends. Strengthening his arguments he submits that reaching of the special report at the residence of Ilaqa Magistrate at 4.30 PM on the same day, gives a guarantee to the truthfulness of eye version account. 28. The learned State counsel while developing the second limb of arguments submits that witnesses produced by the prosecution in this case are most natural. Sajjan Kumar PW4 is the son of the deceased who was coming alongwith his father Sumer Singh (since deceased) from the fields and as such he is the most natural witness to the occurrence. Similarly Hari Ram PW5 is also most natural witness who has given a complete eye version account of the occurrence. He further submits that maybe some discrepancies have occurred in the statement of two eye-witnesses but those cannot be termed as material infirmities so as to knock out the case of the prosecution in its entirety. Similarly Hari Ram PW5 is also most natural witness who has given a complete eye version account of the occurrence. He further submits that maybe some discrepancies have occurred in the statement of two eye-witnesses but those cannot be termed as material infirmities so as to knock out the case of the prosecution in its entirety. The statements do not suffer from any inherent infirmity. Ranbir the other eye-witness of the occurrence has been given up as having been won over and that too would not leave any adverse affect on the case of the prosecution. 29. The learned counsel further contends that much has been said by the trial Court on the conduct of eye-witnesses by touching the confronted portion of their previous statement insomuch so that inconsistency between medical evidence and eye version account has been taken as a ground to disbelieve Sajjan Kumar PW4 and Hari Ram PW5 but this fact by itself cannot wash away the prosecution case. A parrot like version cannot be expected from the witnesses who appeared in the Court after the lapse of considerable time and some discrepancies are bound to occur. The stand of the respondents that Hari Ram witness was beaten by Gordhan etc. while committing the theft of dry fodder (Pullis) would not lend any support to the defence being an after-thought. 30. The learned State counsel has also drawn our attention to Para No. 28 of the impugned judgment in which the learned trial Court has observed that as per the post-mortem examination of the deceased, there was no solid food in the stomach of the deceased and the material found was in liquid form which was semi digested and while giving advantage to the defence, has further observed that at the advanced age, people are not expected to work in their fields and if at all the deceased had gone there, had taken some food before going and it could not reach the stage which was found in his stomach. It is then observed by the learned trial Court that there can be a possibility that the food was taken during the night time and gruesome crime was committed by some one in the earlier hours of the morning. According to the learned State counsel, this is a conjectural view taken by the trial Court on its own without any evidence to this effect. 31. According to the learned State counsel, this is a conjectural view taken by the trial Court on its own without any evidence to this effect. 31. Lastly, the learned State counsel submits that much has been said on the investigation conducted in this case and in other words it has been said to be tainted one. Our attention in this regard has been drawn to the relevant paras of the impugned judgment where the learned trial Court has discussed the investigation and much has been said on the VT message received in the Police Station considering it to be regarding this very occurrence. The learned counsel submits that in fact the VT message was with respect to some other case pertaining to one Dilbagh who had received injuries and the statement of ASI Daya Ram PW6 would not affect the case of the prosecution. It is then contended that even if there are certain discrepancies in recording the ziminis of 12/13th April, 1992, the same may leave some impact on the recoveries but that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case which otherwise comes out to be true on the basis of eye version account. 32. On the basis of above-said arguments, the learned State counsel submits that the eye version account is most reliable; the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be disturbed and all the three respondents who in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Sumer Singh are liable to be convicted for the charge framed against him. 33. Mr. TPS Mann, appearing for the revisionist-complainant adopts the arguments advanced by the learned State counsel. 34. Refuting the arguments, Mr. Gaur, appearing for all the respondents has submitted that the appreciation in an appeal against acquittal is entirely different from an appeal against the conviction and that the interference by the appellate court is called for where the lower court judgment is vitiated by gross errors. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent relies upon State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another, (1988) 4 SCC 302. 35. Coming to the merits of the case, Mr. Gaur has mainly attacked the investigation in the present case dubbing it as tainted one right from the very beginning and submits that there is no guarantee that rest of the investigation in this case is honest one. 35. Coming to the merits of the case, Mr. Gaur has mainly attacked the investigation in the present case dubbing it as tainted one right from the very beginning and submits that there is no guarantee that rest of the investigation in this case is honest one. In this regard the learned counsel has once again taken us to the statement of PW6 Daya Ram ASI where he has stated that ASI Maha Singh etc. had started from Police Station Sampla at 8.00 AM and had brought the V.T. message which was received at Police Station Sampla from Police Post Medical College in connection with this case. Relying very heavily on this statement, the learned counsel contends that ASI Daya Ram was not cross-examined in this regard and, therefore, the State cannot derive any benefit from it and from the V.T. message it reflects that the concerned police of Police Station Sampla had come to know of this occurrence much prior in the early hours of the day but certainly much prior to 10.00 AM and therefore, the whole of prosecution case as projected falls to the ground. According to the learned counsel, this material infirmity speaks volumes of the fact that investigation is most dishonest from its start and therefore rest of the investigation should also be discarded being unfair. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies upon State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu and others, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 590 (relevant Para No. 5 at page No. 592). 36. The learned counsel then contends that in the recovery Memo Ex.PO, the name of the accused is kept blank and in the site plan Ex.PT, the names of the witnesses are not there and this indicates that it was a blind murder converted subsequently into an eye-witness account. 37. The learned counsel then submits that even otherwise the story as projected by Sajjan Kumar PW4 is most improbable on the face of it and merits rejection. It does not get any corroboration from any other independent witness and Hari Ram who has been produced as PW5 is also not trustworthy as he is inimical towards Gordhan on account of their old altercation (tiff) which had occurred three years before the present occurrence. It does not get any corroboration from any other independent witness and Hari Ram who has been produced as PW5 is also not trustworthy as he is inimical towards Gordhan on account of their old altercation (tiff) which had occurred three years before the present occurrence. The learned counsel, in this regard, has once again taken us to the relevant discussion in the impugned judgment and states that the learned trial Court has reasonably come to the conclusion on the basis of the appreciation of entire evidence that the charge against the present respondents is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He submits that when two views of the evidence reasonably possible, it is well established that in such circumstances the High Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies upon Hallu and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1974) 4 SCC 300 (Emphasis on Para No. 5 at page No. 302). 38. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel contends that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed having no substance in it and the revision petition of the complainant shall also sink with the main appeal. 39. Picking up the thread, Mr. Bhasin submits that even otherwise section 34 Indian Penal Code is not attracted in this case as there is no dearth of injuries on the person of Sumer Singh deceased and possibly it cannot be said that Gordhan respondent who is aged 70 years would join hands with his son Dharambir and nephew Surinder by taking Sumer Singh (since deceased) in his grip. The lalkara has also been falsely attributed to him by the complainant party in order to knit the net wider and as such the presence of Gordhan respondent is doubtful and, therefore, section 34 Indian Penal Code in this case is not attracted. In support of his arguments, Mr. Bhasin relies upon Bhagwan Bux Singh and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1978 (SC) 34. 40. After hearing rival contention of either side at length and going through the entire evidence including the impugned judgment minutely, we are of the considered view that the acquittal earned by all the three respondents deserves to be disturbed and they are liable to be convicted for the charge of section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. 41. After hearing rival contention of either side at length and going through the entire evidence including the impugned judgment minutely, we are of the considered view that the acquittal earned by all the three respondents deserves to be disturbed and they are liable to be convicted for the charge of section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. 41. So far as the appreciation of evidence in an appeal against the acquittal is concerned, there cannot be any dispute about the preposition of law as held in Krishna Gopals case (supra), the Judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondents. At the same time, there cannot be any dispute to another legal position that High Court should not reverse order of acquittal where two views are reasonably possible. But to be fair to Mr. Gaur, we may say that in Krishna Gopals case (supra) their Lordships have observed that the powers of the appellate court, in an appeal against the acquittal, are not different from or inconsistent with, those that the appellate court has in an appeal against a conviction; the difference is more in the manner of approach and the perspective rather than in the content of the power. It has been further observed that the plenitude of the power of the appellate court to review and reappreciate the evidence cannot be limited under the supposed rule that unless there are "substantial" or "compelling" reasons or "very substantial reasons" or "strong reasons", the findings in a judgment of acquittal should not be interfered with. There is, thus, no immunity to the acquittal order from judicial scrutiny. In the aforesaid case, while allowing the appeal partly, the case was sent to the concerned Honble High Court for hearing it afresh on merits as the Honble Apex Court found that the High Court in appeal has written a very cryptic judgment and has not made any attempt to scan the intrinsic merits of the evidence. We, in the present appeal, have made all attempts to dive deep so as to rescan the entire evidence minutely. 42. In State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, 2004 SCC (Cri.) 135, while allowing the appeal of the State, the Honble Apex Court has observed that if the impugned judgment of acquittal is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason and a substantial reason to disturb the acquittal. 42. In State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, 2004 SCC (Cri.) 135, while allowing the appeal of the State, the Honble Apex Court has observed that if the impugned judgment of acquittal is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason and a substantial reason to disturb the acquittal. In another very recent judgment rendered in Kamma Otukunta Ram Naidu v. Chereddy Pedda Subba Reddy and others, 2004 SCC (Cri) 155, while dealing with the scope of interference with an order of acquittal, their Lordships have observed that if the order of acquittal suffers from perversity, it has to be set aside. In the instant case, we are of the view that the judgment of acquittal is perverse on many counts. 43. We shall now be entering into detailed discussion for arriving at the said conclusion. 44. It needs to be mentioned that the learned trial Court has unnecessarily entered into discussing the same evidence time and again whereas it was not required. While perusing the impugned judgment minutely, we have noticed that the main grounds of acquittal are viz., the occurrence has not taken place at 10O clock as alleged and had in fact taken place much earlier before 10.00 AM; that there is delay in lodging the FIR; and that a story has been coined by the complainant in connivance with the police so as to convert the blind murder into an eye version account by importing Sajjan Kumar PW4 and Hari Ram PW5 alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence; that there is discrepancy in the eye version account vis-a-vis medical evidence; that the conduct of the witnesses is not trust worthy and that the investigation is tainted one. 45. As per the prosecution case, the occurrence has taken place at 10 AM. It is seen by Sajjan Kumar the con of the deceased, Hari Ram PW5 and one Ranbir (not produced as having been won over). Immediately after the occurrence, the injured was removed in a tractor to Sampla hospital and thereafter to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak. This all consumed one hour and 15 minutes. Admittedly, the distance is 30/32 kilometres and this factum is also observed by learned trial Court. Ruqa Ex.PA sent by Dr. S.C. Nawal is indicative of the fact that it was sent at 11.15 AM indicating that Sumer Singh has been brought dead. This all consumed one hour and 15 minutes. Admittedly, the distance is 30/32 kilometres and this factum is also observed by learned trial Court. Ruqa Ex.PA sent by Dr. S.C. Nawal is indicative of the fact that it was sent at 11.15 AM indicating that Sumer Singh has been brought dead. The learned trial Court has doubted the prosecution story in this regard from two angles. The first approach for discarding is that had the occurrence taken place at 10.00 AM, Sajjan Kumar, the son of the deceased possibly could not reach the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak at 11.15 AM because he must have consumed some time in arranging for the tractor, taking the injured with him, first of all showing the injured to the doctor and then after reference coming to the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak. This hot haste shown by the complainant side, according to the learned trial Court, is most unnatural and for that reason possibly the occurrence might have taken place much prior to 10.00 AM and not at 10.00 AM as alleged. The second aspect considered by the trial Court is that even otherwise no effect has been made by Sajjan Kumar in lodging the report to the police inspite of the fact that Police Station Sampla fell on the way and that even other two witnesses namely Hari Ram and Ranbir did not make any effort to lodge the report. In our view, the approach adopted by the trial Court is not only unreasonable in the present set of circumstances but perverse as well. A lot of indulgence has been shown to the accused side by learned trial Court in this regard. So far as the obvious reaction of Sajjan Kumar son of the deceased is concerned, in our view, there is nothing unnatural in it. He immediately after the occurrence arranged for the tractor and after covering 6/7 kilometres reached the hospital. In all, he might have consumed about 15 to 20 minutes in reaching the hospital. Sumer Singh was immediately referred to the Medical College Hospital Rohtak. In all probabilities another 45/50 minutes were consumed in reaching Medical College Hospital. The learned trial Court has taken the time of occurrence strictly by watch. This approach is also uncalled for. Sajjan Kumar PW4 has stated that at about 10.00 AM when he was coming back from their fields, this occurrence had taken place. In all probabilities another 45/50 minutes were consumed in reaching Medical College Hospital. The learned trial Court has taken the time of occurrence strictly by watch. This approach is also uncalled for. Sajjan Kumar PW4 has stated that at about 10.00 AM when he was coming back from their fields, this occurrence had taken place. Hari Ram who is only a rustic villager of about 70 years does not give any time of the occurrence and says that the present occurrence had taken place when he was going towards the fields. Even in cross-examination, no question was put to him regarding time. We must give some reasonable margin in this regard also. 46. On the other hand, there is no delay at all in lodging the F.I.R. Immediately Sajjan Kumar reached the hospital and his father having been declared dead, his statement was recorded by ASI Daya Ram at 1.35 PM on the main gate of MHC Rohtak. The formal FIR was registered at 3.05 PM in the Police Station. The special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate on the same day at 4.30 PM at his residence. Thus, from the aforesaid factual position it can be comfortably said that there is no delay in lodging the report to the police or even sending the special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate. It cannot be possibly expected from Sajjan Kumar PW4 that instead of taking his father to the hospital, he would have thought of going to the Police Station falling on the way to lodge report showing least concern to his injured father who was on last breath. Similarly if Hari Ram and Ranbir had also not gone to the police station, there is nothing unnatural in it. Both the sides were having tense relationships on account of flash back of criminal track record and this might have deterred these two witnesses to volunteer themselves to be the first informants. They came forward only when the matter was reported by Sajjan Kumar PW4 to the police and the Investigating Officer approached them for the purpose of recording their statements under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code Assuming for the sake of argument, even if there is any delay in lodging the First Information Report, the same cannot be said to be fatal especially when the ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution is worthy of credence. The Honble Apex Court in a very recent judgment rendered in Balram Singh and another v. State of Punjab, 2004 SCC(Cri) 149, while dealing with the delay part in registering the complaint/FIR or even delay in sending the FIR to the Jurisdictional Magistrate has not considered this aspect to be fatal on the ground that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was found to be reliable. In the instant case as well, in our view, even if there is any delay of any kind, it is well explained and the same in other words can be termed as no delay. 47. We have rescanned the statements of both the eye-witnesses minutely. In spite of gruelling cross-examination done from the defence side no material infirmity which would adversely affect the case of the prosecution has been extracted. We have no doubt noticed certain discrepancies with regard to the manner of assault but the same cannot be considered to be damaging one. Parrot like repetition of the occurrence is not at all accepted. In Harijana Narayana and others v. State of A.P., 2004 SCC(Cri.) 65, their Lordships of Honble Apex Court have observed that the evidence in each case is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and from the angle as to whether it inspires confidence in the mind of the court to accept and that the question of credibility and reliability of a witness has to be decided with reference to the way he fared in the cross-examination and the nature of impression created in the mind of the court. It has been further observed that when the courts are unable to sift the grain from the chaff and find that the truth and falsehood so inextricably got mixed together in a particular case and that it will be really difficult to separate them, the question of rejection of such evidence may arise. In the instant case, there is no such situation at all. 48. No doubt Sajjan Kumar PW4 is son of the deceased Sumer Singh and the other witness is also from his community being a Jat. We can term Sajjan Kumar as a related witness. Hari Ram is said to be inimical towards Gordhan on account of previous old altercation which ensued on account of theft of fodder. 48. No doubt Sajjan Kumar PW4 is son of the deceased Sumer Singh and the other witness is also from his community being a Jat. We can term Sajjan Kumar as a related witness. Hari Ram is said to be inimical towards Gordhan on account of previous old altercation which ensued on account of theft of fodder. At the most, in this situation, the approach of great care and caution can be adopted by us. We very cautiously adopting the same approach have tested the statements of these eye-witnesses on the touch stone of human probabilities and the outcome is that they have come to be worthy of credence. We cannot simply discard the evidence of these two witnesses on the ground that they are either close relatives of the victim or known to the victim. In a latest judgment of Honble Apex Court rendered in Karnail Singhs case (supra) para No. 8 can also be read with advantage. 49. We would also like to mention here that even if there is some discrepancy in the eye version account vis-a-vis the medical evidence, that can also not be considered as a ground to reject the prosecution case in its entirety. Assault was over within few minutes. It is difficult for any witness to exactly state that which accused has given how many blows and what was the seat of injuries. 50. The investigation conducted in this case has also been dubbed as dishonest one and the learned counsel for the respondents had attacked it saying that the investigation is tainted one from its very beginning and therefore rest of the investigation be also considered as partial. In this regard, the main attack is on the statement of ASI Daya Ram PW6 who when stepped into witness box has stated that ASI Maha Singh etc. had started at 8 AM and had brought V.T. message which was received at the police station from Police Post Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak in connection with this case. We have seen the V.T. message Ex.DC dated 9.4.92 which is on page No. 133 of the paper book and to be doubly sure its vernacular from the lower court record has also been perused. It has four columns. First column is indicating No. 55. 2nd column indicates that Ishwar Singh SI/SHO left the place. We have seen the V.T. message Ex.DC dated 9.4.92 which is on page No. 133 of the paper book and to be doubly sure its vernacular from the lower court record has also been perused. It has four columns. First column is indicating No. 55. 2nd column indicates that Ishwar Singh SI/SHO left the place. 3rd column indicates the receipt of V.T. message and arrival of ASI. 4th column indicates the time as 6.20 AM. The V.T. message is sent to SHO Police Station Sampla in which it is referred that Dilbag son of Bhima Singh Caste Luhar resident of Kheri Sampla is admitted in MCH, Rohtash due to quarrel case and the IO be sent immediately. On this ASI Daya Ram, Rohtak constable No. 256 were sent to MCH Rohtak with V.T. for recording the statement. In this context the statement of ASI Daya Ram the Investigating Officer assumes great importance who states that on 9.4.92 when he had gone to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, Sajjan Kumar had met him at the main gate and then his statement was recorded. The learned counsel for the respondents has read only that part of the cross- examination which helps him to some extent and has altogether ignored the other relevant portion of cross-examination. We have now gone through the entire statement. This witness in fact has given a stray statement to the effect that ASI Maha Singh had started from Police Station Sampla at 8.00 AM and had brought the V.T. message received in connection with this case. We cannot believe this statement as it is when there is no such V.T. message on record. If there been any message, the defence could prove it by producing the record of the Police Post of Medical College Hospital, Rohtak from where a ruqa regarding Dilbagh was sent. No doubt, no effort has been made from the side of State to clear this ambiguity by way of re-examination but, in our view, this by itself would not dent the prosecution case at all. Suffice it to say that Sumer Singh was received dead by Dr. S.C. Nawal at 11.15 AM on 9.4.1992 as is clear from ruqa Ex.PA. This ruqa and the time in it cannot be doubted at all. In between there was no reason to inform the police by way of any V.T. message. Suffice it to say that Sumer Singh was received dead by Dr. S.C. Nawal at 11.15 AM on 9.4.1992 as is clear from ruqa Ex.PA. This ruqa and the time in it cannot be doubted at all. In between there was no reason to inform the police by way of any V.T. message. It is the specific case of the prosecution that no one had approached the police in between till reaching MHC Rohtak. The matter does not rest here. Statement of SI Ishar Singh PW7 makes this position very clear. In cross-examination he has categorically stated as under :- xxx xxxx xxx xxx "I had started from the police station at 9.15 A.M. after making an entry in the Roznamacha at Sl. No. 9 by government vehicle No. HR-12-0304. Prior to that I was in the police station. On the previous night also I was in the police station. No V.T. message was received in connection with this case at the police station when I was there till 9.15 A.M. I had gone to village Kasrainti, where I had received information about this case at about 2.00 P.M. HC Sukhbir Singh, Dharambir Singh, Ramdhari Constables were with me. They had accompanied me to the Medical College, Rohtak. Another V.T. message from Medical College, Police Post, Rohtak, was received in the morning at 6.30 A.M. I had sent Daya Ram ASI to investigate that case. I did not enquire from Daya Ram when he met me in the Medical College about the action taken by him till then." xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 51. The learned trial Court has not touched this piece of evidence in the right direction. An attempt to demolish the case of the prosecution on account of stray statement of ASI Daya Ram by the trial Court, in our view, is not the correct approach. Witnesses may tell lie but the circumstances do not. 52. The other attack of the learned counsel for the respondents on the investigation is to the effect that in the recovery memo Ex.PO, the name of the accused has been kept as blank. Similarly in the rough site plan Ex.PT, the name of the eye-witnesses is not there. In our considered view, this argument has to be rejected outrightly having no force in it. So far as rough site plan Ex.PT is concerned we have seen it once again. Similarly in the rough site plan Ex.PT, the name of the eye-witnesses is not there. In our considered view, this argument has to be rejected outrightly having no force in it. So far as rough site plan Ex.PT is concerned we have seen it once again. No doubt the particular names of the eye-witnesses are not given but what written therein is that eye-witnesses have seen the occurrence from a particular point. In recovery memo Ex.PO accused name is shown as blank. This fact is noticed by us in many cases and the tendency of the Investigating Officer is to put the name only after the accused is arrested. We can at the most term it as a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer but it cannot be said that a blind murder has been converted into an eye-witness account. Some lapses in the investigation here and there would not demolish the case of the prosecution if it is otherwise proved. Similarly, there are some discrepancies in the ziminis of 12th and 13th April, 1992. These minor infirmities, in our considered view, would not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. At the most, it can be said that the recoveries allegedly effected in this case from two respondents namely Surinder Singh and Dharambir may be considered as doubtful to some extent, but this again would not be a ground to discard the eye version account which is most reliable on the face of it. 53. We would also like to discuss the defence evidence adduced by the respondents. The same, in our view, is very weak and fragile and does not lend any support. Hari Kishan DW1 talks about the old enmity between Gordhan and Hari Ram on account of entering of the cattle into the fields of Gordhan. Abhe Ram DW2 comes with a new story of removing dry fodder (Pullis) by Hari Ram from the fields of Gordhan and in this Gordhan had given beatings to Hari Ram. Both of them have given the time of the occurrence as three years prior to the occurrence. On account of different versions, it is difficult to believe the defence evidence with regard to animosity between Gordhan and Hari Ram. 54. Both of them have given the time of the occurrence as three years prior to the occurrence. On account of different versions, it is difficult to believe the defence evidence with regard to animosity between Gordhan and Hari Ram. 54. Daya Nand DW3 comes up with a story stating that at 3 AM near the pond, he had seen Sumer Singh lying in an unconscious condition and thereafter he informed Sajjan Kumar. He is cross-examination states that he did not see any wound on the person of Sumer Singh and after Sajjan Kumar had reached the spot, he had gone with his buffaloes and had no occasion to talk with the villagers about Sumer Singh lying near the pond. This attempt has been made by the respondents in order to convert the present case into blind murder. The learned trial Court has also given an additional advantage to the respondents observing that there was semi solid food noticed by the doctor at the time of post mortem and this can lead to draw an inference that the occurrence has taken place in the early hours of 9.4.92. In our considered view, the learned trial Court has arrived at this conclusion of its own on the basis of the surmises and conjecture without any evidence on record observing that the deceased who was of the age of 80 years might have taken the food in the night which had not been digested till he was assaulted. At the same time, the learned trial Court observed that at the advanced age of 80 years, there was no reason for him to go to the fields. We are surprised to observe as to what was the basis with the trial Court to arrive at this conclusion. This is absolutely unjustified. We term this finding as perverse on the face of it. 55. Similarly, the scaled plan Ex.DX produced in defence is also of no advantage to the respondents. 56. We also observe that applicability of section 34 Indian Penal Code is writ large in this case. The case of the prosecution is that when Sumer Singh reached near the house of Gordhan, he came running to him and caught hold Sumer Singh and asked his companion Surinder and Dharambir that it is proper time to take revenge of previous feud. The case of the prosecution is that when Sumer Singh reached near the house of Gordhan, he came running to him and caught hold Sumer Singh and asked his companion Surinder and Dharambir that it is proper time to take revenge of previous feud. It was thereafter that Surinder who was armed with a lathi and Dharambir who was armed with a knife gave numerous blows on the person of Sumer Singh. As per the medical evidence there is no dearth on injuries on the person of the deceased. The allegation of taking into grip does not always tend to false implication. This particular part assigned to the accused has to be seen in the context of other factual position. As per the prosecution case, Gordhan respondent, in fact, is the ignition point who had taken the deceased in his grip from backside and instigated his co-accused saying that it was the proper time to take revenge of previous feud. In the instant case, from the evidence adduced, it can be safely said that Gordhan respondent has also shared the common intention with his son Dharambir and nephew Surinder viz to commit the murder of Sumer Singh and as such he is liable to be convicted with the aid of section 34 Indian Penal Code. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 57. As a sequel to the aforesaid factual position and keeping in view the legal principles as enumerated in Karnail Singhs case (supra), in our considered view, the inevitable conclusion is that the trial Court was not justified in directing the acquittal of the present three respondents/accused persons. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 23.12.1994 is hereby set aside and all the three respondents are convicted for the charge of section 302 Indian Penal Code read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. 58. After hearing both the sides on the quantum of sentence, we order that all the three respondents would undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. We, however, do not intend to impose any fine. 59. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 324-DBA of 1995 filed by the State of Haryana is allowed. Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1995 is also decided accordingly. 60. 58. After hearing both the sides on the quantum of sentence, we order that all the three respondents would undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. We, however, do not intend to impose any fine. 59. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 324-DBA of 1995 filed by the State of Haryana is allowed. Criminal Revision No. 428 of 1995 is also decided accordingly. 60. All the three respondents are directed to surrender to custody to serve the sentence of imprisonment as awarded. Appeal allowed.