JUDGMENT H.S. Bhalla, J.:- By this common judgment, we shall be disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 191-DBA of 1996 filed by the State of Punjab challenging the order of acquittal dated 13.6.1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Amritsar and Criminal Revision No. 819 of 1995 filed by complainant Kulwant Singh praying for setting aside the acquittal order and awarding of suitable punishment to the accused-respondent. 2. Adumbrated facts of the prosecution case are that Kulwant Singh, father of Sukhdev Singh (deceased) got his statement, Ex. PW-3/A, recorded before the police stating therein that on 17.3.1993 he woke up at about 5.00 A.M. and went outside the house in the company of his nephew Shiv Charan Singh to answer the call of nature. When both of them went near the house of Gurdial Singh, they heard hue and cry “Hai Hai” coming from near the said house of Gurdial Singh. Kulwant Singh had a torch with him. He lit the torch and noticed that accused Joginder Singh was armed with a Kandhali and he was inflicting blows on the head of Sukhdev Singh, who had been caught hold by Kanwaljit Singh son of Joginder Singh the accused. Kulwant Singh and Shiv Charan Singh raised alarm and also gave a lalkara and then accused Joginder Singh and his son Kanwaljit Singh, a juvenile, left Sukhdev Singh in the lane and ran away. When Kulwant Singh and Shiv Charan Singh went near Sukhdev Singh, they found that Sukhdev Singh was lying fallen in a pool of blood and was unconscious and he died within a few minutes. Shiv Charan Singh went to the house to inform the other members of the family, who reached there soon thereafter. Kulwant Singh went to inform the police and according to him, police had met him at the bus stop of village Bundala, where his statement was recorded and thereafter, police accompanied him to the place of occurrence. As per the complainant, the motive to commit the offence was illicit relationship between the deceased and Kuljit Kaur, daughter of the accused. After completing necessary formalities, accused Joginder Singh was challaned under. Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sent up for trial. His son Kanwaljit Singh, who was a juvenile, was sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. After completing necessary formalities, accused Joginder Singh was challaned under. Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sent up for trial. His son Kanwaljit Singh, who was a juvenile, was sent to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Accused was charge-sheeted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, Senior Lecturer, Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Amritsar (PW-1), Rishi Ram, Draftsman (PW-2), Kulwant Singh, the eye witness (PW-3), Shiv Charan Singh (PW-4), Affidavit of Amrik Singh (PW-5), Sub Inspector Salwinder Singh (PW-6), Affidavit of Gurbhej Singh (PW7), Affidavit of Sarwan Kumar (PW-8) and Affidavit of Constable Baldev Singh (PW-9). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded that he is innocent. The complainant has got him falsely implicated in this case in connivance with the police. The Kandhali has been planted on him by the police in order to strengthen their case. He further disclosed that he being the President of Patti Bath and due to party faction, he has been falsely implicated. 3. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab and perused the records carefully. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State of Punjab has vehemently argued that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent without appreciating the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution in its correct perspective. Learned State counsel further brought to our notice that the state­ments of Kulwant Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased and Shiv Charan Singh (PW-4), the nephew of complainant Kulwant Singh, were not taken into consideration simply on the ground that there were certain minor discrepancies occurring in their statements, which are bound to occur when they do depose truthfully after a lapse of sufficient time. He further argued that the approach of the learned trial court in not believing the ocular account given by the aforesaid witnesses is erroneous. Learned counsel has, lastly, argued that Kulwant Singh and Shiv Charan Singh are closely related to each other and they are interested witnesses and the possibility of implicating innocent person falsely cannot be ruled out. He further argued that the approach of the learned trial court in not believing the ocular account given by the aforesaid witnesses is erroneous. Learned counsel has, lastly, argued that Kulwant Singh and Shiv Charan Singh are closely related to each other and they are interested witnesses and the possibility of implicating innocent person falsely cannot be ruled out. This aspect of the matter has also not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. 4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab and for the reasons to be recorded by us hereinafter, we find that they are not liable to be accepted and no interference is called for in the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. Before we proceed further in the matter, we would like to observe that it is well settled law that order of acquittal can be interfered with only if there is an absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused upon the evidence on record and the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal, unless the same is found to be perverse and the order of acquittal can be set aside if the view taken by the trial Court is perverse. We would also like to observe that if on over-all appreciation of evidence available on record, two views are possible and when on appreciation of evidence, a particular view has been preferred by the learned Sessions Judge and when the findings cannot be said to be perverse merely because another view is possible, the High Court could not be justified in interfering with the acquittal order recorded by the learned trial Judge. The entire case of the prosecution has to be scrutinised in the light of the evidence available on record and keeping in view the observations made above. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab, we would like to peep through the ocular accounts given by Kulwant Singh (PW-3) and Shiv Charan Singh (PW-4). Kulwant Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased, who lodged a report with the police, stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and deposed the similar version as contained in the FIR. Kulwant Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased, who lodged a report with the police, stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and deposed the similar version as contained in the FIR. His statement stands corroborated by Shiv Charan Singh (PW-4), who is nephew of Kulwant Singh. Kulwant Singh (PW-3) during the course of his cross-examination, has stated that his son Sukhdev Singh was employed in a factory, but he had not gone to attend to his duty despite the fact that he was asked to go. Furthermore, the baithak in which Sukhdev Singh was sleeping during the night, had the two doors, one of which, opens into the house and it was found to be closed in the morning. The other door, which opens into the street, was found to be open when this witness woke up in the morning at about 5.00 AM. According to him, Sukhdev Singh was not present in the baithak at that time. This witness has further pointed out that the place of occurrence was 80-85 yards away from the door of the baithak and he did not hear the cries of his son when he was in the baithak. Further, this witness has deposed that he heard the sound of ‘Hai Hai’ only when he and Shiv Charan Singh were at a distance of 15 yards away from the place of occurrence. According to him, he had flashed the torch when they were at a distance of 5-7 yards away from that place and then they had identified Sukhdev Singh and the accused. He has further stated that Shiv Charan Singh, his nephew, had run towards the deceased with intent to save his life, but by that time, the accused and his son sped away from the spot Further, this witness has made the statement that his clothes had stained with blood when he went near his son and tried to hold him, but the clothes of Shiv Charan Singh did not smear with blood and his hands had stained with blood. This witness has admitted this fact that when he was examined in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate earlier, he had not disclosed that the clothes of Shiv Charan Singh had also smeared with blood. The crucial point. This witness has admitted this fact that when he was examined in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate earlier, he had not disclosed that the clothes of Shiv Charan Singh had also smeared with blood. The crucial point. to be noted in this case is his own blood stained clothes regarding which he stated that he had gone to the police station wearing the same clothes, but at the same time in the next breath, he changed his version by mentioning that he had gone to the police station after changing his clothes. On analysing further the statements of this witness, which was made earlier before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and then made before the Sessions Judge, Amritsar, this witness is not clear and specific on this particular point as to whether he had inquired from his son at any time regarding illicit relations between him and the daughter of the accused. When this witness came to depose before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, he stated that he had no talks with Ghulla Singh about illicit relationship with his son and the daughter of the accused, but he had stated opposite when examined before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This witness has admitted this fact that earlier to this occurrence, a panchayat was convened, wherein this witness had made clear in the Panchayat that if something happened to his son, then Joginder Singh accused and Ghulla Singh would be responsible. All this shows that the two statements made by Kulwant Singh (PW-3), one before this Court, and the other before the Chief Judicial Magistrate are contradictory to each other leaving the impression that this witness is not straight forward and has tried to conceal the real version. His conduct regarding the changing of clothes before reporting the matter to the police is also unnatural. In the light of the evidence, as discussed above, we are of the considered view that the presence of this witness at the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful. Likewise, Shiv Charan Singh, the other alleged eye witness, also suffers from similar infirmities. According to him, the place from where he saw the occurrence, was only 8 or 10 yards away and in his presence as many as 10 or 12 blows were given by the accused. Likewise, Shiv Charan Singh, the other alleged eye witness, also suffers from similar infirmities. According to him, the place from where he saw the occurrence, was only 8 or 10 yards away and in his presence as many as 10 or 12 blows were given by the accused. It is highly improbable to believe the version put forward by this witness that both he and complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-3) could not be able to save the precious life of his son, when he was being assaulted by the appellant and his son despite the fact that they were so near to the place of occurrence. The statement of this witness is not consistent to the one earlier made before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding the clothes being blood-stained and he was also duly confronted with his earlier statement. This witness is closely related to Kulwant Singh (PW-3) and he, being an interested witness, gave deposition in order to make the prosecution case successful. From the discussions made above, we are in full agreement with the view expressed by the learned Sessions Judge in not believing the statements of both the witnesses, namely, Kulwant Singh (PW3) and Shiv Charan Singh (PW-4) holding that they were not present at the scene of the crime. The learned Sessions Judge has also dealt with the point of delay in lodging the FIR by citing a sound and convincing reasoning emerging from the record of the case that the FIR was not even written at 8.30 A.M. as is claimed by the prosecution. If the FIR had been written at 8.30 A.M. as claimed, then it would have reached the hands of the Magistrate definitely by 10 or 11.00 A. M. since the distance between Jandiala and Amritsar is only 14 Kms. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab has not been able to put up any explanation as to how and in what circumstances, a considerable delay in sending special report to the lIaqa Magistrate occurred. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab has not been able to put up any explanation as to how and in what circumstances, a considerable delay in sending special report to the lIaqa Magistrate occurred. Further, we are convinced with the observation made by the learned Ses­sions Judge that the occurrence, in fact, took place during the night when neither the complainant nor other persons were present and after the dead body was found in the morning, matter was reported to the police and a case was registered falsely against the accused and his son on the basis of suspicion, which fact finds ratified from this aspect that when the matter came up before the panchayat, it was pointed out by the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-3) that if anything happened to his son, in that even­tuality, accused Joginder Singh and Ghulla Singh would be responsible. Thus, looking from every angle, the prosecution story against the appellant does not seem to be probable and no reliance cal be placed on it. On over-all assessment of the oral evidence led by the prosecution, the inevitable result is that the appellant-State of Punjab has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant, who has been acquitted, beyond reason­able shadow of doubt. The learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record and acquitted the appellant by giving him the benefit of doubt and as such, we find no ground to interfere with the same and in the final analysis, finding no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant-State of Punjab, it is hereby dismissed. Since Criminal Appeal No. 191-DBA of 1996 filed by the State of Punjab against the order of acquittal dated 13.6.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, has been dismissed. We find no substance in Criminal Revision No. 819 of 1995 filed by the complainant. It is accordingly dismissed. -------------------------