JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh, J.:- Heard learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, and perused the records. 2. This Criminal Misc. (application for leave to appeal) and Appeal arise out of judgment dated 9.4.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No.10 of 14.11.2006, recording acquittal of accused-respondents in case FIR No.100 dated 13.8.2006, registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Dirba. 3. It appears that FIR was lodged on the statement given by Savinder Singh @ Kaka (PW1), on 13.8.2006. As per his statement, he is an agriculturist by occupation. His land is situated near Baba Seesh Ganj, Dirba, where he is also having a cattle shed. On the date of incident, after night meals, he went to cattle shed in his fields. He took a path which leads to fields of accused Satwinder Kaur wife of late Karnail Singh. At about 12.00 in the intervening night of 12/13.8.2006, when he was passing through, he saw Jaspal Singh @ Leela son of Satwinder Kaur, and Ranjit Singh son of Bachan Singh with two other persons whom he did not know. At about 2.00 O’clock in the night, accused Jaspal Singh also came to him to collect match box and then went back. After 10 minutes, he heard shrieks at the motor of Jaspal Singh, which, according to him, was situated near his cattle shed. In the morning, he came to know that during the night, Ranjit Singh, who had been residing in the house of accused persons, received injuries and died. He expressed his suspicion that said Ranjit Singh was done to death by accused Jaspal Singh @ Lillu and two other persons in conspiracy with Jaspal Singh’s mother Satwinder Kaur @ Kalaro as there was a rumour in the locality that deceased Ranjit Singh had a bad eye on Jaspal Singh’s sister. His statement was recorded at Ex.PA and an endorsement thereon was made by Investigating Officer vide Ex.P A/1. Finally, it led to registration of an FIR Ex.PA/2. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report Ex.PR and vide application Ex.PL, sent a requisition for conducting post-mortem on the dead body. Post-mortem of dead body was conducted vide post-mortem report Ex.PV. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was drawn vide Ex.PS, and incriminating articles including blood stained earth etc. were removed from the scene of occurrence and seized. The Investigating Officer prepared inquest report Ex.PR and vide application Ex.PL, sent a requisition for conducting post-mortem on the dead body. Post-mortem of dead body was conducted vide post-mortem report Ex.PV. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was drawn vide Ex.PS, and incriminating articles including blood stained earth etc. were removed from the scene of occurrence and seized. Seized articles were reduced into parcels with seal impression ‘OS’. Match box vide Ex.P7, was also recovered and taken into police possession vide Ex.PQ. Accused Satwinder Kaur was arrested vide Ex.PO and her search was conducted vide Ex.PD. Accused Jaspal Singh was arrested vide Ex.PC and his search was conducted vide Ex.PB. It also appears that during investigation, accused Jaspal Singh suffered a disclosure statement regarding weapon of offence which he had kept concealed inside Charri crop. Disclosure statement is Ex.PH. Accordingly, weapon of offence being Gandasa was recovered. Rough site plan of scene of recovery was also prepared at Ex.PK. FSL report was received as Ex.PM. Record of electricity supply, Ex.PX, was also seized. Finally, a challan was presented against the accused persons and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, charged them under Sections 120-B and 302/34 IPC. However, a substantive charge under Section 302 IPC was also framed against accused Jaspal Singh. 4. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined Savinder Singh as PW1, who is complainant in the case; Jaswinder Singh, SHO as PW2, who is Investigating Officer; Mohrir Head Constable Mehar Singh as PW3; Constable Pargat Singh as PW4; Eye witness Jarnail Singh as PW5; ASI Gurjant Singh as PW6; Dr. Anju Singla as PW7; Jaswant Singh as PW8 and Chamkaur Singh as PW9, and closed the evidence. Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Learned trial Judge, on a careful appreciation of evidence, found that the testimony of sole eye witness Jarnail Singh, PW5, does not inspire confidence. That apart there is no other piece of reliable evidence. Hence, learned trial Judge recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that a credible testimony of Jarnail Singh, PW5, has been rejected on flimsy grounds. According to learned counsel, presence of Jarnail Singh, PW5, was quite probable as his fields were adjacent to the fields of accused­ persons. Hence, learned trial Judge recorded the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that a credible testimony of Jarnail Singh, PW5, has been rejected on flimsy grounds. According to learned counsel, presence of Jarnail Singh, PW5, was quite probable as his fields were adjacent to the fields of accused­ persons. Besides, he also highlighted that there was a motive for commission of offence as the deceased was having bad eye over the sister of accused, and the moment he came to know about this, he entered into a conspiracy and systematically did away with the deceased. 7. On a careful consideration of submissions made by learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and examining of testimonies of witnesses, which are handed over to us during the course of hearing, we are of the view that our interference is not called for in this case. Incident in question took place during intervening night of 12/13.8.2006. Though electricity record was requisitioned, but no responsible officer from electricity department was examined to say that electricity was available at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. Admittedly, as per examination-in-chief of Jarnail Singh, PW5, his land is situated 5 acres away from the land of accused. Unless this was found that electricity was available, it cannot be said that witness Jarnail Singh could have seen the incident from a distance of 5 acres. That apart, it was a rainy season and this has not come on record as to what for witness Jarnail Singh was needed in his fields during late night hours. This is also not mentioned as to whether any crop was standing which required irrigation even during rainy season or he was keeping some cattle in his field. Besides, this has also come in the evidence that the sister of this witness PW5 and sister of ASI Gurjant Singh, PW6 who partly investigated this case, were married in the same house. As the accused and the eye witness are stated to be neighbourers and the latter denied the factum of marriage of his sister in the house where the sister of ASI Gurjant Singh was married which was found to be true, learned trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the credibility of sole eye witness does not inspire confidence. That apart, this is also in evidence of Jarnail Singh PW5 that he saw accused Jaspal Singh causing Gandasa blow on temporal region of deceased Ranjit Singh and when he asked as to why the accused was inflicting such injuries, he was told that this is their personal matter. However, once the witness had seen the act of causing of injuries with a deadly weapon, he could have, obviously imagined the result and should have informed his co-villagers or the police immediately about that. On the contrary, he came to know about death of Ranjit Singh only in the following morning on 13.8.2006. In this background and keeping in view ratio of judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court on the question of interference with orders of acquittal, we are not inclined to entertain this application for leave to appeal. Hon’ble the Apex Court in various judgments, including the ones reported in (i) 2002 (3) RCR (Crl.) 861 (Hariiana Thirupala and others Versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad) ; (ii) 2004 (2) RCR (Crl.), 940, (Shingara Singh versus State of Haryana and another), and (iii) AIR 2005 SC 2439 (State of UP versus Gambhir Singh and others), has taken a consistent view that if two views are possible, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused for recording his acquittal should be accepted as the reasonable and possible view. 8. Hence, this application for leave to appeal and the appeal are dismissed being devoid of merits. ------------------