R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd April, 1985, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Session Case No. 669/81, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent herein of the offence/charge under Sections 452/308 IPC. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case, as has been noted by the learned Additional sessions Judge, are as under : prosecution case is that Chandgi Ram S/o Shri Chunni Lal R/o village Surera, P. S. Najafgarh, Delhi came to the police station at 1150 p. m. on 2. 5. 1981 and reported that he was residing in that village with his family; that at 11 p. m. Mange Ram S/o Ram Phal opened the gate of his house, which was situated at the road and entered the house; after hearing the sound of his steps, two pups which were sitting beside him, started barking and at their barking, he got up from his bed and asked as to who he was. At this, Mange Ram was armed with an iron rod gave a blow with it to him, which he took on his left hand and then gave second blow on his head, as a result of which he was injured seriously and started bleeding, an in the meantime, he raised alarm. Udey Singh S/o Shri Chuni Lal who was sleeping in front at the roof of his house, came after seeing him running, his neighbour Manve Ram S/o pt. Kundan Lal reached there, who saw Mange Ram running form the house; he wanted to be medically examined; that this incident had occurred due to old enmity and with a view to kill him; that he apprehended danger at his hands; spot be inspected; that he had come to report the matter; this information was recorded in DD no. 30a on 2. 5. 81 at P. S. Najafgarh, Delhi. The injured was sent to police hospital alongwith the constable-Ganga Bishan No. 132 and the report was ordered to be sent to S. I. Kanwar Singh, who was already investigating the matter in another report NO. 77-B, through wireless message. The injured was medically examined in the hospital at about 2. 25 P. M. on 3. 5. 81. Thereafter, formal FIR NO. 92 was recorded on 7. 5. 81 at 7. 77-B, through wireless message. The injured was medically examined in the hospital at about 2. 25 P. M. on 3. 5. 81. Thereafter, formal FIR NO. 92 was recorded on 7. 5. 81 at 7. 10 P. M. making out an offene under section 452/308 IPC. The investigation was carried out and thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, medical opinion was also obtained and thereafter, the accused Mange Ram was challaned, committed and was finally charged by my learned predecessor under section 452/308 ipc. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in order to substantiate its case has examined Chandgi ram, who is the injured witness, as PW1. While PW2 Chet Ram and PW4 Udai singh are the so-called eye-witnesses. PW1 Chandgi Ram has narrated the occurrence. He has stated that on 2. 5. 1981 at about 11 p. m. whie he was asleep in his house, Mange Ram S/o Ram Phal opened the gate of his house and entered. The dogs in the house raised the alarm and he got up at which time Mange Ram, who was armed with an iron-rod, struck him on his left hand and thereafter, second blow was struck on his head. As a result of his injuries, he raised a hue and cry, which attracted udey Sigh and Manve Ram. The version of this witness is supported by PW-2 Chet ram and PW4 Udey Singh as also by PW5 Mange Ram. From a perusal of the deposition of these witnesses, it appears that when Chandgi Ram was being inflicted injuries by the accused, the other witnesses saw the second blow being dealt on the head of the injured witness PW1. The trial court on analysis found that such a course of event is not possible since firstly the injured witness himself was alerted by the bark of the dogs and would not have allowed Mange Ram, the accused, to walk into his house to assault him with a dang, which was not a deadly weapon. Further, it was held by the trial court that it is not possible for the other witnesses to witness the second blow which in all likelihood must have followed in quick succession. Further, it was held by the trial court that it is not possible for the other witnesses to witness the second blow which in all likelihood must have followed in quick succession. He has also noted that the FIR was recorded after eight days of the occurrence and that there is every possibility of the accused being falsely implicated on account of long pending enmity and litigation between the parties. ( 4 ) THIS view based on the evolution of evidence is not perverse and the reasoning cannot be faulted with. In the totality of circumstances, where there is enmity between parties, the view of the trial court that the accused would not have come armed with dang had he intended to attack PW1, who was living in his fortress surrounded by his relatives, in the manner sought to have been made out by the prosecution is not perverse. Further, the trial court was right in holding that it would not be possible for the so-called eye-witnesses to have been attracted to the scene of occurrence on raising of hue and cry and yet witnessed the second blow that struck the head of PW1. Coupled with this is the fact that the FIR was registered eight days after the incident which cannot rule out the possibility of deliberation and planning. Since the view taken by the trial court on appreciation of evidence is quite possible. Merely because an alternative view is also possible is no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shri Gopal and Anr. Vs. Subhash and Ors. [ 2004 (1) JCC 439 ] and Ram Swaroop and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [ 2004 (1) JCC 555 ]. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the trial court. Crl. A. 205/1985 is accordingly dismissed. .