JUDGMENT : The appellant Ram Sewak was tried on the charge of murdering Surendra Pal Singh a teacher in a school in Village Khera Bhajera. According to the prosecution case, on 13-2-1992 at about 5 p.m. the deceased was returning on a bicycle with his 15-year-old daughter, PW1 from the school and when they came near the fields of Liladhar, the accused Ram Sewak attacked the deceased with a lathi as a result of which the deceased fell down. PW1 Vinita the daughter of the deceased then fled away from the scene, informed her maternal uncle Virendra Singh, PW2 and when they came back to the scene of occurrence, they found the deceased in unconscious and badly injured condition. From there, the deceased was carried to his house wherefrom he was shifted to the hospital. Soon after reaching the hospital Surendra Pal Singh succumbed to the injuries. Virendra Singh, PW2 filed a report in the Police Station Faridpur which seems to be almost opposite to Primary Health Centre Hospital at Faridpur. The FIR was registered at 7.10 p.m. i.e. within two hours of the occurrence. The FIR was forwarded through a constable to the Police Station Fatehgarh (East) which is the jurisdictional police station in respect of the village concerned. Then PW3 Tejpal Singh, Sub-Inspector, in charge of Fatehgarh Police Station started investigation and recorded statements of PW2 Virendra Singh and Vinita, PW1 while they were at the hospital on the intervening night of 13/14-2-1992. Dr. Nursingh Bahadur, PW5 conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Surendra Pal Singh on 14-2-1992. The post-mortem report reveals that there were as many as five lacerated wounds on or near the head, the last being 10 cm x 1 cm x bone-deep on the back side of the head which caused the fracture of occipital bone and congestion of brain membranes. PW5 deposed that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 2. The accused took the plea that he was implicated on account of enmity with PW2 Virendra Singh and that he was not present in the village on the day of occurrence. He examined DW1 Mohd. Mobin Khan who testified that sister-in-law of the accused had undergone the tubectomy operation at PHC Faridpur on 13-2-1992 and that he was in the hospital in that connection. He examined DW1 Mohd. Mobin Khan who testified that sister-in-law of the accused had undergone the tubectomy operation at PHC Faridpur on 13-2-1992 and that he was in the hospital in that connection. The accused also examined DW2 Roop Prakash in order to establish that the presence of PW1 Vinita at the time of occurrence was highly doubtful. 3. The eyewitness of the occurrence is PW1, Vinita the daughter of the deceased. The trial court disbelieved her evidence on the ground of certain contradictions and discrepancies and acquitted the accused of the charge. The trial court also disbelieved the evidence of PW2 Virendra Singh mainly on the ground that he was inimically disposed towards him on account of an incident of burglary committed three months earlier allegedly by the accused. The trial court also commented on the fact that the report was initially filed at Faridpur Police Station though it did not have the jurisdiction. 4. On appeal filed by the State, the High Court allowed the appeal and held the appellant guilty under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Pending the appeal, it appears that the appellant was sent to prison pursuant to a non-bailable warrant directed to be issued by the High Court. It is against the verdict of the High Court the present appeal was filed by the appellant while serving sentence in the jail. 5. As regards the deposition of PW1 Vinita, the trial court discarded her testimony, broadly speaking, for three reasons : (1) that the reason given by PW1 Vinita for going to the school in which her father was a teacher on the crucial date cannot be accepted; (2) that there was a discrepancy between the versions given by PW1 and PW2 as regards the object by which the deceased was carried from the scene of occurrence to the house. According to PW1, the deceased was put in a cart, whereas PW2 stated that he was carried in a cot. (3) that there was a discrepancy in the versions of PW1 and the IO as regards the date of recording PW1, statement under Section 161. 6. The High Court has discussed each one of these grounds and found that PW1 was a truthful witness and none of the factors pointed out above would warrant discrediting the testimony of PW1 Vinita. (3) that there was a discrepancy in the versions of PW1 and the IO as regards the date of recording PW1, statement under Section 161. 6. The High Court has discussed each one of these grounds and found that PW1 was a truthful witness and none of the factors pointed out above would warrant discrediting the testimony of PW1 Vinita. The High Court was not inclined to give any weight to the evidence of defence witnesses. 7. As regards the first aspect pointed out by the trial court, we concur with the High Court that the reasoning cannot be sustained. Assuming that PW1 could not satisfactorily explain the purpose of going to her father's school, we find nothing improbable or incongruous in PW1 going to the school where her father was a teacher and both of them coming together after the school hours. In the FIR, lodged within two hours of the occurrence, the fact that PW1 Vinita was an eyewitness and she was returning from the school with her father on the same bicycle was conspicuously brought out. This gives an additional assurance to the Court that PW1 Vinita is not a got up witness. The second point which weighed with the High Court in discarding the testimony of PW1 is equally untenable. PW3, the investigating officer, categorically stated that he recorded the statement on the same night. It is highly improbable that examination of the crucial witness whose name was disclosed in the FIR itself would be postponed for such a long time, that too, when there was only one eyewitness to the occurrence. It may be that in the course of investigation, PW1 Vinita would have been interrogated more than once and it would be difficult to expect PW1 who was examined after two years to come forward with the correct date when the statement was formally recorded by the police. Lastly, the alleged discrepancy in the versions of PW1 and PW2 as regards the mode by which the deceased was carried to his house is too feeble a discrepancy on the basis of which the evidence of PW1 could be rejected. At any rate, it is not an irreconcilable contradiction. The High Court has rightly viewed it as a minor discrepancy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant then pointed out that the cycle of the deceased was not recovered at the spot. At any rate, it is not an irreconcilable contradiction. The High Court has rightly viewed it as a minor discrepancy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant then pointed out that the cycle of the deceased was not recovered at the spot. The High Court commented that it would have been removed by somebody by the time the police arrived at the place. Whether this comment is justified or not, the fact remains that the cycle was not found on the spot does not cut at the root of the prosecution case unfolded by the evidence of PW1. Even if there was a defect in the investigation, that is no ground to categorise the evidence of PW1 as unreliable. It was then pointed out that PW2 Virendra Singh was inimical towards the accused and, therefore, he was implicated. The alleged enmity is said to be on account of oral report given by PW2 in connection with the theft committed by the accused in the house of the deceased. Far from creating a doubt on the reliability of the evidence of PW2, this fact stated by PW2 would throw light on the possible motive for attacking the deceased. On the facts apparent from the evidence, it cannot be reasonably concluded that PW2 would have had strong reason to unnecessarily implicate the accused in the crime. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant then strenuously contended that this is an appeal against acquittal based on clear findings of the trial court and the High Court ought not to have interfered. But it is well settled that the High Court, as an appellate Court, can reappreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings, if they are perverse or the reasons given by the trial Judge are palpably untenable. We do not think that the view taken by the trial court could be considered to be a reasonably possible view precluding interference against the verdict of acquittal. The High Court has rightly taken the view that the evidence of the eyewitness has been discarded on feeble and untenable grounds and unnecessary doubts were entertained by the trial court despite the clear and cogent evidence linking the appellant to the crime. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.