JUDGMENT : S.B. Sinha, J. The State of Rajasthan is in appeal before us against a judgment and order dated 11.12.1998 passed in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 322/1996 reversing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 63/1994 holding the respondent herein guilty of commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the First Information Report is as under: 3. The deceased Tara Singh, whose son-in-law, Kartar Singh and son, Harmender Singh, PWs-2 & 3 respectively went to their fields to change the water course as was routinely done on every Mondays. PW-2 and PW-3 returned from their fields at about 8:30 in the night leaving the deceased behind. Allegedly, while they were coming back to their house from the field, they saw the respondent herein going towards his own field with the gandasa in his hand. At about 1:30 in the night when Tara Singh did not return, his son and son-in-law again went back to the field and allegedly found the respondent herein assaulting the deceased with gandasa. 4. The prosecution apart from relying on the deposition of PWs-2 & 3, in support of its case, relied upon the recovery of the gandasa and the blood stained shirt purportedly belonging to the respondent herein. The report of the Chemical Examiner shows the presence of human blood belonging to group 0' in the said shirt. 5. The learned Sessions Judge inter alia relying on the said evidence found the respondent guilty of commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, however, as noticed hereinbefore, set aside the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge inter alia holding (1) the dead body of Tara Singh was recovered in the field of the accused but no explanation was offered by the prosecution with regard, to the presence of the dead body in the field of the respondent; (2) three of four foot prints of different persons were found near the cot upon which the dead, body was found; but even in relation thereto, no explanation ways offered by. the prosecution; (3) there was no reason for PW-2 and PW-3 to return to the field at about 1:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. as they. had left the, field at 8:30 p.m.; (4) Dr. Hanuman Singh Vishnoi, who claimed himself, as PW-5 and conducted the post-mortem, categorically stated that in view of food particles found in the stomach' of the deceased, possibility of his death having taken place at about 9:00 p.m. could not be ruled out and (5) the purported recovery of gandasa was also held to have not been proved. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State in assailing the judgment of the High Court submitted that no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the High Court to disbelieve the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3. The prosecution story, the learned counsel submitted, cannot be said to be fully improbable as not only it was supported by oral evidence of two eye-witnesses, but also supported by other materials brought on record, namely, recovery of gandasa and blood stained shirt which contained blood being of the same group as that of the deceased. Such seizures witnessed by PW-7 and PW-9, would lead to the conclusion that the respondent and respondent alone was the person responsible for causing the death of the said Tara Singh. It was further argued that even if the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 is not believed, circumstantial evidences, namely, recovery of gandasa and blood stained shirt would lead to only one conclusion that the respondent has committed the murder of the deceased. 7. We are not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned counsel. The autopsy surgeon, Dr. Hanuman Singh Vishnoi in his evidence clearly stated that the deceased might have taken his food at 9 O'clock. Evidence was brought on record to show that he took his meal in the field itself. 8. In the aforesaid situation, the High Court was of the opinion that there existed a possibility that the deceased had his food in his house and then went to his field. If that be so, the genesis of the occurrence, namely, the deceased alongwith PWs. 2 & 3 had gone to the field for the purpose of changing the water course and whereas PWs. If that be so, the genesis of the occurrence, namely, the deceased alongwith PWs. 2 & 3 had gone to the field for the purpose of changing the water course and whereas PWs. 2 & 3 came back to their house from the field leaving behind the deceased alone and saw the respondent herein going towards his own field at about 9:30 p.m. with the gandasa, cannot be said to be credible. 9. From the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is clear that the deceased was expected to come back to his house. If the evidence of PW- 2 and PW-3 to the effect that the job for which they had gone to the field, namely, change of the water course was completed, there was no reason for the deceased to stay back for a while. The prosecution case stands falsified for more than one reason. First, there was no reason for PWs. 2 & 3 to leave an old man behind in the field at such odd hours. Secondly, if the deceased was not to sleep in the field, the presence of the cot, which admittedly belonged to the deceased, becomes doubtful. Thirdly, if the deceased was to come back to his house, there was absolutely no reason as to why he was found sleeping not at the place of occurrence which is his own field, but on the field of the accused person. 10. The learned counsel argued that even if the evidence of PWs. 2 & 3 are not believed, at least that part of their statements to the effect that the respondent had been found by them going towards his own field with the gandasa should have been accepted by the High Court. If the main part of the prosecution story, namely PW-2 and PW-3 saw the respondent inflicting injuries upon the deceased was not trustworthy, it is difficult to believe the story that they had seen the respondent going to his field with a gandasa. 11. In the above-mentioned factual background, the opinion of FW- 5, Dr. Hanuman Singh Vishnoi in regard to possible time of death of Tara Singh assumes importance. He in his evidence categorically stated: it is correct that the death of the deceased is also possible at 9:00 p.m. on 26.8.1991. 11. In the above-mentioned factual background, the opinion of FW- 5, Dr. Hanuman Singh Vishnoi in regard to possible time of death of Tara Singh assumes importance. He in his evidence categorically stated: it is correct that the death of the deceased is also possible at 9:00 p.m. on 26.8.1991. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries and have been sustained by the deceased, it is possible that the death would take place in any event at the most within 5 minutes after the receipt of these injuries." 12. The High Court opined that the Doctor, therefore, did not rule out the possibility of death having been caused at 9:00 p.m. If the same is accepted as correct, the deposition of PWs-2 & 3 that they saw the accused giving death blow to the deceased at about 2:00 a.m., five hours thereafter, cannot be believed. Furthermore, if the respondent had any motive to kill the deceased, he despite having found him alone in the field from 9:00 p.m. onwards, he would wait till 2:00 a.m. for the said purpose. Although there was some evidence as regards recovery of the blood stained shirt, but as, the recovery of gandasa has been disbelieved, we are of the opinion that the recovery of the shirt alone cannot lead to an inference that the respondent is responsible for causing death of the deceased. We do not think that the above-mentioned findings of the High Court are so absurb so as to merit interference by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. 13. For the reasons above-mentioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.