Judgment Rekha Kumari, J. 1. This appeal by the State of Bihar is directed against the judgment dated 11.1.1988 passed by Shri Anirudh Prasad Choudhary, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1981 by which he has acquitted all the respondents of the charges framed against them. There were three more respondents in the appeal, namely, Liyakat Mian, Sheo Nandan Yadav and Nandi Lal Yadav, who died during the pendency of this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, as it appears from the Fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant Chhedi Mian, is that on 3.11.1979 at about 8.00 A.M. after taking food the informant along with his cousin Suleman Mian (deceased) set out together from their house. The informant had to go to Methai Bazar and Suleman Mian had to go to Saharsa. At about 8.15 A.M. when they were passing by the side of the Banswari (bamboo clump) of Mohammad Mian, about 15-20 persons including the respondents came out from the Banswari armed with Lathi, Garassa and dagger and surrounded them and started assaulting Suleman Mian. The informant fled towards west at some distance to save himself and raised alarm. On the alarm raised by the informant, Siyaram Das (P.W. 4), Jagdish Yadav (P.W.3) and others came there, and seeing them the assailants fled away southwards towards their village. It is further said that the informant then went near his brother and found him besmeared with blood lying unconscious and severely injured all over the body. He then carried the injured on a cot to Madhepura Subdivisional Hospital for treatment, where on the same date i.e. 3.11.1979 at 13.30 hours, the Fardbeyan was recorded. On the basis of the said Fardbeyan formal F.I.R. (Ext. 5) was drawn up under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 342 and 307 I.P.C. against the respondents. 3. It is also alleged that the occurrence took place on account of long standing land dispute between Suleman Mian and the respondents. 4. It appears that on 4.11.1979 the injured died in the hospital of the injuries sustained by him. It also appears from the evidence led in the court that the prosecution case also is that in conspiracy with the other respondents, accused Raghu Yadav had instigated Suleman Mian to go to Saharsa on the pretext of making pairvi in his case and he had also accompanied him upto the place of occurrence. It also appears from the evidence led in the court that the prosecution case also is that in conspiracy with the other respondents, accused Raghu Yadav had instigated Suleman Mian to go to Saharsa on the pretext of making pairvi in his case and he had also accompanied him upto the place of occurrence. 5. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against all the respondents and also accused Raghu Yadav. 6. All the respondents and Raghu Yadav then were charged under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of deceased Suleman Mian. Respondents Ghafoor Mian, Muslim Mian, Sugandhi Mian were further charged under Sec.148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the remaining respondents were charged under Sec.147 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the charges. 7. The defence of the respondents, as gathered from the suggestions given to the P.Ws., is that Suleman Mian was a criminal and he was killed by some other persons but the informant falsely implicated them out of enmity. 8. At trial, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses to prove the charges. Among them P.W.1 is Kailash Prasad Yadav, who had seen the accused fleeing. P.W. 2 Acho Ram claims to be the eye witness. P.W.3 Jagdish Prasad Yadav claims to have seen the accused persons standing at the place of occurrence after assault, P.W. 4 Sia Ram Das also claims to have seen the accused persons at the place of occurrence. P.W.5 Bibi Habiba is the wife of the deceased. P.W.6 Hasmul is the daughter of the deceased. P.W. 7 Bal Kishore Yadav is a seizure list witness in whose presence blood stained earth is said to have been collected by the I.O. P.W. 8 Chhedi Mian is the informant. P.W. 9 Kameshwar Prasad Yadav is a formal witness in whose presence Fardbeyan was recorded by the police. P.W. 10 is Dr. A.Z. Mallick, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 11 Kailash Behari Tiwary is the I.O. of the case. 9. The respondents did not enter into defence but filed certified copy of the deposition of Suleman Mian in Complaint Case No. 82 of 1966 (Ext. A) and certified copy of Magistrates general register of cases (Ext. B) showing Suleman Mian (deceased) as an accused in a dacoity case. 10. 9. The respondents did not enter into defence but filed certified copy of the deposition of Suleman Mian in Complaint Case No. 82 of 1966 (Ext. A) and certified copy of Magistrates general register of cases (Ext. B) showing Suleman Mian (deceased) as an accused in a dacoity case. 10. The trial court on consideration of the prosecution evidence held that though the prosecution has been able to prove that Suleman was murdered on the alleged date at the alleged place of occurrence, it has failed to prove that the respondents and accused Raghu Yadav were responsible for the same. He accordingly by the impugned judgment acquitted all the respondents and also accused Raghu Yadav. 11. It appears from the memo of appeal that accused Raghu Yadav has not been made respondent in this appeal. 12. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence. The informant, who was with the deceased, was a natural witness and he has fully supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses, who had reached the place of occurrence have also supported the prosecution case, but the learned trial court on flimsy ground has disbelieved their evidence. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondents defended the impugned judgment. He submitted that the learned trial court has held that neither the informant nor any other witness had seen the occurrence in which the deceased was murdered, nor any of them saw the respondents fleeing, and has given cogent reasons for coming into his conclusion. Therefore, this Court in appeal cannot reverse the judgment by substituting its own views. 14. It appears that the learned trial court after considering the evidence of the I.O. and the doctor has held that it has been established that the deceased was assaulted by some sharp cutting weapon as well as hard blunt substance on the alleged date, time and place and he died of the injuries sustained by him. 15. In order to appreciate it, I have gone through the evidence of the doctor (P.W.10) and the I.O. (P.W.11) 16. P.W.10 the doctor has deposed that on 4.11.1969 at 11.00 A.M. he held post mortem examination on the dead body of Suleman Mian and found the following ante mortem injuries: i) stitched wound 3" long on the right side of the head. P.W.10 the doctor has deposed that on 4.11.1969 at 11.00 A.M. he held post mortem examination on the dead body of Suleman Mian and found the following ante mortem injuries: i) stitched wound 3" long on the right side of the head. On removal of stitches, lacerated wound 3" (B shaped) x 1/2" x bone deep with fracture of the left frontal bone was found. It was a fracture of about 2 1/2" above left ear. ii) stitched wound, with three stitches, 3" long on the right upper part of the head. 1" lateral to mid line left side.-- On removal of stitches, lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" x bone deep with fracture of the right parietal bone was found. iii) Lacerated wound 1/4" x 1/4" x skin deep on the lateral side of the left ankle. iv) One stitched wound 9" long (B shaped) upper limb 6" and lower limb 3" on right forearm. On removal of stitches incised wound 9" x 3" x muscle deep forming a conical flap of the skin 6" x 3" border of each skin and superficial fassa on the lower arm of the half of the postrobedial side of the right fore arm. v) Incised wound 1/2" x 1/6" x 1/2" on the lateral side of the root of the right thumb. vi) Lacerated wound 1 1/4" x 1/6" x 1/2" on the medial side of the lower third of the right thigh. vii) One linear abrasion 5" on the lower third of the left thigh. viii) Linear abrasion 4" long on the back of middle of the left forearm. On dissection extra dural and subdural haematoma was present on the left side of the brain underneath fracture of the left frontal bone and (2) extradural and subdural haematoma of the right side brain with laceration of the brain matter. 17 The doctor has opined that the death was caused on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the above injuries. His opinion also is that the deceased had died within 12 hours of the post mortem examination. His report further shows that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi and sharp cutting weapons with pointed edges like dagger, pharsa and garassa. 18. His opinion also is that the deceased had died within 12 hours of the post mortem examination. His report further shows that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi and sharp cutting weapons with pointed edges like dagger, pharsa and garassa. 18. The evidence of the doctor, therefore, is clear that the deceased had received several lathi, garassa and bhala blows and died of these injuries in the night between 3.11.1979 and 4.11.1979 or soon thereafter. 19. The evidence of the I.O. P.W. 11 is that on 3.11.1979 he was posted as Officer-in-charge of Madhepura police station and on that date at 12.30 noon he received an O.D. slip from Madhedpura hospital and went to the hospital, where he found the injured Suleman Mian un-conscious and he examined the injured and issued injury slip. He recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of the informant in the hospital. He has further stated that on the same date at 17.30 hours he inspected the place of occurrence, which was a village road running between Balam Garhia and Mathai villages and on inspection he found that there was a Khanta (ditch) 6 ft. west of the western edge of the road and he found copious blood at three places in the said Khanta. He has also stated that to the east of the road also there was a Khanta 5 ft. east of the eastern edge of the road and adjacent to the said Khanta Banswari of respondent Mohammad Mian and others situate. His evidence also is that he seized blood stained earth and prepared seizure list (Ext.6) and that on 4.11.1979 he received information about the death of the deceased. 20. Therefore the evidence of the I.O. also clearly shows that an occurrence had taken place near the bamboo clump of respondent Mohammad Mian, as has been mentioned in the Fardbeyan. 21. The evidence of the doctor and the I.O. hence, supports the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted by lathi, garassa etc. on 3.11.1979 near the Banswari of respondent Mohammad Mian and he died of the injuries sustained by him. 22. The most important question, however, is how far the prosecution has been able to prove that the respondents had taken part in the above assault and whether the trial court was justified in holding them not guilty. 23. on 3.11.1979 near the Banswari of respondent Mohammad Mian and he died of the injuries sustained by him. 22. The most important question, however, is how far the prosecution has been able to prove that the respondents had taken part in the above assault and whether the trial court was justified in holding them not guilty. 23. In this connection it may be mentioned that in appeal against acquittal, the law is settled that the High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court and should interfere only when the view taken by the trial court is unreasonable or perverse. In the case of Kashiram V/s. State of M.P. - , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that where two views are possible, the High Court should not interfere only because it feels that sitting as a trial court it would have preferred conviction. 24. Keeping in mind the above principles, I will discuss whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court could be set aside. 25. P.W. 8, the informant, has deposed that Suleman Mian was his cousin. On the alleged date he was going to Mathai Bazar and Suleman Mian and Raghu Yadav (accused) were also going with him and Raghu Yadav was taking Suleman Mian to Saharsa for taking steps in his case. He has further stated that when they reached north of their house, near Banswari, Raghu Yadav sat to urinate and he and Suleman Mian moved ahead and saw 15-20 persons sitting in the Banswari. They surrounded them. Among 15-20 persons, he identified the respondents and among them respondents Ghafoor Mian and Muslim Mian were armed with Garasa, Sugandhi was armed with dagger, Sheonandan (since dead) was armed with Tengari and other respondents were armed with lathi and they started assaulting Suleman Mian and he (Suleman Mian) fell down. He (P.W.8) raised alarm and witnesses arrived. The respondents continued to assault him for some time and then they fled away. His evidence then is that after the respondents fled, he went near Suleman Mian and found him un-conscious and there were marks of injuries on his body. He (P.W.8) raised alarm and witnesses arrived. The respondents continued to assault him for some time and then they fled away. His evidence then is that after the respondents fled, he went near Suleman Mian and found him un-conscious and there were marks of injuries on his body. He bandaged the wounds and took him on a cot to Madhepura Hospital, where his statement was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police and in the night in the hospital his brother died. 26. The witness has also stated that land dispute was going on between Suleman Mian and respondents Mohammad Mian, Liyaquat Mian and others and out of that enmity, they assaulted him. 27. In cross examination he has stated that Raghu Yadav had fled away from the place where he had sat to urinate. 28. P.W. 1 Kailash Prasad Yadav has stated that on the alleged date at about 8.00 a.m. he was in his house when he heard hulla coming from the Banswari of Mohammad Mian. He rushed towards that place and there he saw the respondents Sheonandan Yadav (since dead), Sadanand Yadav, Nandlal Yadav (since dead), Muslim Mian, Jhuli Mian and Ghafoor Mian fleeing southwards and they were armed with lathi, Bhala, Garasa and axe and when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw Suleman Mian besmeared with blood lying un-conscious on the western Khanta of the road. He has also stated that the informant was there and he informed that the respondents had assaulted Suleman Mian. His evidence also is that the injured then was taken on a cot to Madhepura Hospital. 29. P.W. 2 Achhe Ram has stated that on the alleged date at about 8.00 a.m. he was at his door when he heard halla of the informant and Suleman Mian coming from Banswari of Mohammad Mian. He went there and saw Suleman Mian lying in Khanta and being assaulted with lathi, dagger, Garasa. He has stated that respondents Sugandhi Mian, Ghafoor Mian, Mohammad Mian, Muslim Mian, Niyamat Mian, Ramzan Mian, Imaman Mian, Liyaquat Mian, Jhuli Mian and Abbas Mian were assaulting him. He has further stated that witnesses Jagdish, Thithar and others, in the meantime, reached there and the assailants fled away. His evidence also is that there was land dispute between Suleman Mian and respondent Ghafoor Mian and litigation was also going on. 30. He has further stated that witnesses Jagdish, Thithar and others, in the meantime, reached there and the assailants fled away. His evidence also is that there was land dispute between Suleman Mian and respondent Ghafoor Mian and litigation was also going on. 30. P.W. 3 Jagdish Prasad Yadav has stated that on the alleged date at about 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. he was in his field, when he heard hulla coming from the mango orchard and he went there and saw Suleman Mian lying besmeared with blood in the Khanta, west of the road and blood had fallen there and he saw the respondents Ghafoor Mian, Sugandhi Mian, Muslim Mian, Niyamat Mian, Ramzan Mian, Niyamat Mian, Liyaquat Mian, Abbas Mian, Jhula Mian, Mohammad Mian and others standing there. His evidence also is that there was land dispute between Suleman Mian and respondent Ghafoor Mian and others. 31. P.W. 4 Siyaram Das has deposed that he was Mahanth and also works as priest. He was in his Math when at about 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. he heard hulla coming from the side of Banswari of Mohammad Mian and he went there and saw Suleman Mian lying un-conscious. There were injuries on his body. He has further stated that he saw respondents Ghafoor Mian armed with sword, Sugandhi, Liyaquat Mian and Muslim Mian armed with Tengari, Niyamat Mian armed with Bhala. Some of them wanted to further assault Suleman Mian, but others told that he was already dead. In cross examination he has stated that the above respondents were coming to assault again, when he remonstrated and they returned. 32. P.W. 5 Bibi Habiba, wife of the deceased, has stated that on the alleged date in the morning at the time of breakfast, her husband was in the Angan taking breakfast, when Raghu Yadav (accused) came and insisted him to accompany him to Saharsa in an urgent work and then both the persons went out of the house. The informant was at the door. He also went with them. She has further stated that after some time, she heard hulla that her husband had been murdered. She and her daughter Hasmun went near the Banswari of Mohammad Mian and saw her husband lying unconscious besmeared with blood in the western Khanta and there were cut injuries all over the body. She learnt that respondents Ghafoor Mian, Sugandhi Mian, Md. She has further stated that after some time, she heard hulla that her husband had been murdered. She and her daughter Hasmun went near the Banswari of Mohammad Mian and saw her husband lying unconscious besmeared with blood in the western Khanta and there were cut injuries all over the body. She learnt that respondents Ghafoor Mian, Sugandhi Mian, Md. Muslim Mian, Niyamat Mian, Ramzan Mian, Imaman Mian, Liyaquat Mian, Abbas Mian, Jhoola Mian and others had assaulted him. She has further stated that Raghu Yadav was in the group of the above respondents and he had intentionally taken her husband to the place of occurrence. 33. P.W. 6 Hansmul, daughter of P.W. 5 has also more or less stated in the same way as P.W. 5. 34. Thus, I find that the above witnesses have supported the prosecution case. 35. Though the above witnesses have bean examined to support the prosecution case, among them P.Ws. 5 and 6 are hearsay witnesses. So, their evidence is not of much importance so far the actual occurrence is concerned. As regards P.W. 1, he had not seen the occurrence. His evidence is that when, on hulla of the informant, he rushed to the place of occurrence, he saw some of the respondents fleeing. But he has stated that his house is at a distance of 1 km. from the Banswari. Therefore, it is doubtful that he could hear the alarm raised by the informant and rushed towards the place of occurrence on that hulla. He is also not named in the F.I.R. as a witness. So, much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of this witness. 36. P.W. 2 though has claimed to have seen the actual assault, in cross examination, at one place he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the assailants running. At another place he has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found wounds of the accused bandaged. The evidence of the informant is that after the assault he went to his brother and bandaged the wounds. The learned trial court in view of the above discrepancies has disbelieved the witness. As there appears some vital contradictions in the evidence of this witness, I agree with the learned trial court that it is doubtful that the witness had seen the occurrence. 37. P.Ws. The learned trial court in view of the above discrepancies has disbelieved the witness. As there appears some vital contradictions in the evidence of this witness, I agree with the learned trial court that it is doubtful that the witness had seen the occurrence. 37. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have claimed to have seen some of the respondents at the place of occurrence. The learned trial court has disbelieved the evidence of these witnesses on the ground that it is not expected that after assault, the assailants would remain at the place of occurrence to be identified by the witnesses and that there was enmity between these witnesses and the respondents and so, they have come to depose against the respondents. 38. It appears from the cross examination of P.W. 3 that Siyaram Das (P.W. 4) is his uncle. P.W. 3 has also admitted that prior to this occurrence, there was survey in the village in which there was dispute between Siyaram Das and respondents with regard to nine kathas of land, and there were proceedings under Sections 144, 145 and 107 Cr.P.C. between them in which he was also a party with his uncle. P.W. 4 has also stated that in the survey the respondents had got their names recorded in half of his property and that proceedings under Sections 144 and 145 Cr.P.C. is going on between him and the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that there was enmity between those witnesses and the respondents from before. 39. P.W. 3 in his cross examination has also stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence the cot (on which injured was carried) was there. The evidence of P.W. 8 is that after the assailants fled, the cot was brought at the place of occurrence. So, it is clear that after the occurrence P.W. 3 had reached the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 has also stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, there were about 25-30 witnesses present. This also suggests that he had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence. So, as observed by the learned trial court it is not expected that even after the occurrence, the assailants would remain there to be identified by the witnesses. 40. This also suggests that he had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence. So, as observed by the learned trial court it is not expected that even after the occurrence, the assailants would remain there to be identified by the witnesses. 40. So, when the learned trial court has disbelieved these two witnesses and has given reasons for the same, which cannot be totally ignored, I think much importance should not be attached by this Court on these two witnesses also although they are named in the F.I.R. as witnesses. 41. There remains, therefore, the only evidence of the informant (P.W.8). He claims to have been accompanying the deceased and seen the entire occurrence. The learned trial court has not relied on the evidence of this witness. According to him, though admittedly he was a cousin of the deceased and being near relative would not have left the real culprits and implicated innocent persons, but actually he did not accompany the deceased and did not see the occurrence and as there was enmity between him and the respondents, he falsely implicated them. In coming to this conclusion it has observed that the evidence shows that the respondents were more inimical against the informant than the deceased. So, if the respondents had to assault they would have targeted and assaulted the informant and not leave him. He has further observed that the evidence on record is that the deceased had no work and as such he had no reason to leave for Saharsa at that time. It is also not proved that accused Raghu Yadav was taking him to Saharsa for his work or that the respondents had any knowledge that Suleman Mian would pass by the side of Banswari so that they should lie in wait for him. The story of accused Raghu Yadav has been deliberately introduced by the prosecution to show that the accused was in league with the respondents and the accused purposely took Suleman Mian to the place of occurrence so that he may be assaulted. 42. The informant P.W. 8 in his cross examination has stated that Suleman Mian and his brother had brought a title suit for partition in which he was also defendant, about three years prior to the occurrence and on account of that suit, attempt was made to kill Suleman Mian. 42. The informant P.W. 8 in his cross examination has stated that Suleman Mian and his brother had brought a title suit for partition in which he was also defendant, about three years prior to the occurrence and on account of that suit, attempt was made to kill Suleman Mian. P.W. 5 has also stated that the respondents are agnates of her husband and a case was going on between her husband and the respondent Liyakat Mian and others regarding land dispute. The evidence of the informant further is that there was a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and a case under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code between him and the respondents. It is, therefore, evident that the informant was also inimically disposed of towards the respondents. The evidence of the informant in cross examination further is that when they reached near the place of occurrence, he was also surrounded along with Suleman Mian and the respondents had also attacked him. He has further stated that he fled away and he was chased by the respondents for about ten steps. 43. Thus, when the respondents were inimical against this witness and they had attacked him also, the view of the learned trial court is not very unreasonable that the respondents would not have spared him altogether. But, there is no evidence that this witness had received any injury. 44. Then in his evidence in Court, the informant has stated that accused Raghu Yadav also had accompanied them from the house of Suleman Mian and that Raghu Yadav was taking Suleman Mian to Saharsa for making pairvi in his case. He has further stated that near Banswari, Raghu Yadav sat to urinate and he and Suleman Mian moved ahead. In cross examination he has stated that from there Raghu Yadav was seen fleeing away. 45. P.W. 5, the wife of Suleman Mian and P.W. 6, his daughter, as already mentioned above, have also stated that on the alleged date in the morning Suleman Mian was taking his breakfast when Raghu Yadav came and asked him to go Saharsa for making pairvi in his case and then Suleman went with him. 46. 45. P.W. 5, the wife of Suleman Mian and P.W. 6, his daughter, as already mentioned above, have also stated that on the alleged date in the morning Suleman Mian was taking his breakfast when Raghu Yadav came and asked him to go Saharsa for making pairvi in his case and then Suleman went with him. 46. If Suleman Mian was going to Saharsa for the work of Raghu Yadav and all the three were going together, there is absolutely no reason why the informant would not have stated about Raghu Yadav in the Fardbeyan, but in the Fardbeyan nowhere he has mentioned about Raghu Yadav. This of course is a vital omission and makes the story of Raghu Yadav taking Suleman Mian to Saharsa, suspicious. 47. Then, the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is that Suleman Mian was taking breakfast when Raghu Yadav came and insisted him to go with him. Their evidence also shows that Raghu Yadav was in a hurry and did not allow Suleman Mian to take the breakfast. P.W.6 has further stated in her cross examination that her Father had sat for breakfast and her mother was serving it when Raghu Yadav came and took her father along with him. But the evidence of the doctor (P.W.10) is that he has found semi digested rice at about 8.30 P.M. present in the stomach. In view of the evidence of the doctor also, it is doubtful that Raghu Yadav had gone to the house of the deceased in the morning as alleged. 48. The evidence of P.W. 5 also is that Suleman Mian had no programme to go out of the house on that day. So, when the evidence is not reliable that Raghu Yadav had gone to the house of Suleman Mian and that Suleman Mian had no programme to go out, a doubt is created that Suleman Mian had left the house in the morning and the informant had accompanied Suleman Mian from his house and that Suleman Mian reached the place of occurrence from his house as alleged. 49. According to the learned trial court, as it is not proved that Raghu Yadav had brought Suleman Mian, the prosecution case also cannot be believed that the appellants were lying in wait for him and they assaulted Suleman Mian. 49. According to the learned trial court, as it is not proved that Raghu Yadav had brought Suleman Mian, the prosecution case also cannot be believed that the appellants were lying in wait for him and they assaulted Suleman Mian. This view cannot be altogether brushed aside in absence of any evidence as to how the respondents could know that Suleman Mian would pass by the side of Banswari at that time. 50. So, when the informant was inimically disposed towards the respondents but he was not assaulted at all although attacked, and the story that accused Raghu Yadav was taking Suleman Mian from his house is not believable and appears to have been purposely introduced and the evidence of P.W. 5 is that Suleman Mian had no reason of his own to go out, the view that it is doubtful that the informant was accompanying Suleman Mian or that Suleman Mian had reached the place of occurrence from his house, as alleged, cannot also be said to be unreasonable. 51. So, in view of the evidence mentioned above, only on the basis of the evidence of the informant who was closely related to the deceased and highly inimical against the respondents, I think it would not be proper to hold the respondents guilty. 52. Thus, when the learned trial court was of the view that there was no reliable eye witness to the occurrence and that there was reason for the informant to implicate the respondents and that there were other grounds and circumstances as discussed above, to hold the respondents not guilty of the charges; and the view of the learned trial court is not very unreasonable, I think no interference should be made by this Court in appeal. 53. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.