M. C. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgement and order dated 5. 1. 1981 passed by iv Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in S. T. No. 276 of 1980 acquitting the three accused-respondents, namely, Idris, Saeed and Bundu of the charges under Section 307 read with section 34 I. P. C. and 307 I. P. C. The charge of Section 307 I. P. C. was against Saeed whereas the other two accused were charged with aid of Section 34 I. P. C. Idris and Saeed are real brothers being sons of Babu and Bundu is their uncle. During the pendency of appeal, the accused-respondent Bundu has died and the appeal has abated so far as he is concerned under order dated 27. 7. 2005. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case, briefly stated, was that on 18. 3. 1979 at about 9. 00 A. M. Saukat Ali PW 2 was taking water from his water tap. All the three accused-respondents came there. Some exchange of hot words took place between Saukat Ali and the accused. The accused Saeed caused injuries to Saukat Ali by stabbing him with knife with the intention to kill him. Bundu and Idris had allegedly caught hold of Saukat Ali at the time he was stabbed by Saeed. Written f. I. R. was submitted at the Police Station Shikarpur the same day at 11. 00 A. M. by Liyakat Ali pw 3 who claimed himself to be an eye-witness. Saukat Ali was examined at P. H. C. Shikarpur at 10. 30 A. M. A case was registered at the police station against all the three accused and the investigation was taken up by S. I. Ram Dutt Pandey PW 5. He reached the spot immediately after the lodging of the F. I. R. and the accused were arrested on that very day at 1. 45 P. M. He inspected the spot and prepared the site-plan. The fard of blood-stained clothes of Saukat Ali was prepared by him. It was Dr. B. S. Benival PW 1 who had examined the injuries of Saukat Ali on 18. 3. 1979 at 10. 30 A. M. at P. H. C. Shikarpur. The following injuries were found on his person: 1. The fard of blood-stained clothes of Saukat Ali was prepared by him. It was Dr. B. S. Benival PW 1 who had examined the injuries of Saukat Ali on 18. 3. 1979 at 10. 30 A. M. at P. H. C. Shikarpur. The following injuries were found on his person: 1. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm deep over left lateral side of chest 18cm lateral and 4 O clock position from left nipple. Oblique. Bleeding present. 2. Incised wound 2. 5 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm deep over back of left side of trunk. 7. 0 cm above and back of injury No. I. Bleeding. ( 3 ) INCISED wound 3. 0 cm x 1. 5 cm x 3. 5 cm over back of left thigh. 14 cm above knee joint. ( 4 ) CONTUSION 3. 0 cm x 2. 0 cm over back of 2nd phalanx of left ring finger. Colour red. 3. All the injuries were kept under observation and X-ray was advised for injury No. 4. Injuries no. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by penetrating sharp object and injury No. 4 was caused by blunt and hard object. The duration was fresh. 4. The accused denied the charges. The defence was that they resided in same Bakhal. There was one common latrine which was used by all the inhabitants. On the fateful day at about 9. 00 A. M. Hamida-mother of Saeed was sitting inside the latrine. Saukat Ali wanted to go to latrine. He asked aloud as to whether anybody was inside the latrine. Hamida replied that she was there inside. She got late in coming out whereupon Saukat Ali started abusing the ladies who asked him not to do so. Then Saukat Ali, Gulzar and Jarrar beat Smt. Hamida, Shahjahan, Phool Jahan and Sharifan. The accused Idris and Saeed saved them but in that marpeet, one of the ladies gave to him a blow from knife of domestic use. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Out of them, Saukat Ali PW 2, Liyakat Ali pw 3 and Chaman PW 4 were examined as eyewitnesses. The accused Idris and Saeed saved them but in that marpeet, one of the ladies gave to him a blow from knife of domestic use. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Out of them, Saukat Ali PW 2, Liyakat Ali pw 3 and Chaman PW 4 were examined as eyewitnesses. ( 6 ) THE gist of the testimony of Saukat Ali PW 2 was that when he was taking water from his water tap, the accused Saeed came there and questioned him, as to why he was naming the accused Bundu for abducting Smt. Munni wife of Chaman. He denied the allegation and stated that he treated Bundu and Chaman alike. Then some hot altercation took place and in the meantime, the accused Bundu and Idris came there. He got frightened and wanted to run away but he was caught hold of by the accused Bundu and Idris. They asked Saeed to kill him. The accused Saeed then gave him three knife blows. On his alarm, the witnesses Liyakat Ali, chaman, Ibrahim and Jamaluddin came there. The accused ran away. Liyakat Ali PW 3-real brother of Saukat Ali as also Chaman PW 4 corroborated his version. Chaman also stated that it was a fact that the accused Bundu had abducted his wife Munni about six months before this incident. ( 7 ) DR. Banwari Lal DW 1 proved the injury reports of the four injured (three ladies and one female child) on the side of the accused. They were examined on 19. 3. 1979 between 2. 50 P. M. and 3. 30 P. M. in District Hospital, Bulandshahr. Hamida had sustained three injuries. Out of them two were abrasions. Central incisor of right upper jaw was found broken leaving the root inside gums lacerated. It was kept under observation. Sharifan had also sustained swelling with contusion on outer aspect of the right leg lower part 5 cm above right ankle, besides complaint of pain in chest wherefor X-ray was advised. Chest X-ray of Shahjahan was also advised as there was complaint of pain on left side chest. Phool Jahan aged about two years sustained scabbed abrasion on left side of cheek and linear abrasion on the left upper eyelid outer side. Sarafatullah dw 2-Imam was examined who stated that Nikah between Bundu and Munni was performed in his presence on 23. 8. Phool Jahan aged about two years sustained scabbed abrasion on left side of cheek and linear abrasion on the left upper eyelid outer side. Sarafatullah dw 2-Imam was examined who stated that Nikah between Bundu and Munni was performed in his presence on 23. 8. 1977 for a Mehr of Rs. 5,000/ -. He proved the Nikamnama-Ext. Kha-5. Bundu Khan DW 3 son of Akbar Khan stated that he knew accused Chaman from before and on 4. 2. 1977 Chaman had divorced his wife Munni. He proved Talaqnama-Ext. Kha-6. ( 8 ) WE have heard learned A. G. A. Miss Usha Kiran from the side of the State and Sri C. P. Misra assisted by Sri A. N. Pandey for the accused-respondents. The State counsel has argued that the trial judge ignored the trustworthy eyewitness account without any plausible reason despite the same being in harmony with medical evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused-respondents assailed the so-called eyewitness account of the prosecution on the ground that the witnesses were interested and inimical to the accused. Further, the prosecution did not tender any explanation for the injuries sustained by as many as four ladies on the side of the accused, namely, Hamida-mother of accused Idris and Saeed; Sharifan wife of the accused bundu, Shahjahan wife of Saeed and Phool Jahan aged about two years daughter of Saeed. ( 9 ) WE have thoroughly examined the evidence on record and the findings of the trial judge. We are of the view that he rightly appreciated the evidence to record acquittal. It is not a case either of perversity or misreading of evidence. He has given cogent reasons for recording acquittal which meet our approval. The same may be set forth briefly. As per the F. I. R. itself, there was domestic enmity between the accused on one hand and the complainant and the injured on the other. There was no independent witness to support the prosecution case, though it was admitted position that about 50-60 persons were living in that Bakhal. It was a big Ahata known as Bakhal in which the injured and the eye-witnesses as also accused and other relatives resided using a single common latrine. The presence of Liyakat Ali PW 3 was doubtful. There was no independent witness to support the prosecution case, though it was admitted position that about 50-60 persons were living in that Bakhal. It was a big Ahata known as Bakhal in which the injured and the eye-witnesses as also accused and other relatives resided using a single common latrine. The presence of Liyakat Ali PW 3 was doubtful. He named the eyewitnesses in the F. I. R. who allegedly witnessed the incident, but he did not mention that he was also amongst them. He being real brother of Saukat Ali, seemingly later on posed himself also as an eyewitness of the incident. The presence of Chaman on the spot was also not believable. He was a rickshaw puller. He admitted that he used to ply rickshaw from morning till evening. Further, he had his own axe to grind inasmuch as the prosecution case was that Bundu accused had abducted his wife. He was also related to injured Saukat Ali. The allegation that his wife was abducted by accused Bundu about six months before the incident was disproved. It would be recalled that as stated by Bundu Khan DW 3 this witness Chaman had divorced his wife Munni vide Talaqnama-Ext. Kha-6 on 4. 2. 1977. As per the testimony of Sharafatulla DW 2, bundu and Munni performed Nikah on 23. 8. 1977. The incident took place on 18. 3. 1979. Chaman was seemingly nursing grudge against Bundu accused and readily came forward to oblige the prosecution by tendering evidence against the three accused. Thus, the basis of prosecution case was demolished. Apparently, the prosecution concealed the genesis of the incident and presented a distorted picture. 12. To cap it all, there was no explanation for the injuries of four females including infant Phool jahan aged about 2 years. True, the injuries of all of them were simple, but they could have been received on the fateful day at about 9. 00 A. M. as stated by doctor examined in the defence. It could not be accepted that injuries had been self-inflicted on the persons of these females for the purpose of creating evidence. 13. In the wake of all the shortcomings and weaknesses in the prosecution case dealt with in detail by the trial judge, the acquittal is perfectly justified. 14. No interference is called for by this Court of appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. 15. 13. In the wake of all the shortcomings and weaknesses in the prosecution case dealt with in detail by the trial judge, the acquittal is perfectly justified. 14. No interference is called for by this Court of appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed. 15. Certify the judgement to lower court. . .