JUDGMENT : ABHAY GOHIL, J. State has preferred this appeal under section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 20th May, 2006 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 74/94, for the offences against Balveer under sections 302 and 307/34, Indian Penal Code and against Sukhdev and Ramdas under sections 307 and 302/34, Indian Penal Code. 2. As per the prosecution story, on 22-11-1993 at about 7.45 in the morning, the complainant Shriram and his son Dilip and Guddu alias Rajveer and one Harnarayan alias Tunde were watering their field from the tube well, at that time respondent Balveer came on the field and asked them that why they have released the water. The fact was disputed by the complainant party. Thereon Balveer abused them and he tried to assault them. In the meantime Dilip and Guddu both caught hold Balveer and gave legs and fists blows to him. Thereon Balveer left the place saying that he will see them. Thereafter, Shriram Singh, Dilip, Harnarayan alias Tunde also went to their house and they closed the doors of the house and they sat on the roof of the house. At the same time, Balveer carrying 315 bore mouser Licencee gun, Sukhdev carrying mouser of his brother and Ramdas carrying licencee 12 bore gun, came there and knocked the doors and when the doors were not opened they went to the house from the side of the house of Babusingh. Balveer fired at Harnarayan alias Tunde by his mouser gun, which hit on his face and he fell down. Second fire was made by Sukhdev and third fire was made by Ramdas. Sukhdev and Ramdas also fired on Dilip. Babusingh was saying that they should not be saved and all of them made repeated fire. Harnarayan succumbed to the fire injuries on the roof itself. Injured Dilip was taken in a tractor to P. S. Pavai and report was lodged at P.S. Pavai. Police investigated the matter and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. 3. During trial prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and in defence three witnesses were examined. Shriram Singh (P.W.2), Bhagirath (P.W.3), Dilip (P.W.4), Rajdeep alias Guddu (P.W.5), and Kalander Singh (P.W.7) were the eye witnesses of the incident. Police investigated the matter and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. 3. During trial prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and in defence three witnesses were examined. Shriram Singh (P.W.2), Bhagirath (P.W.3), Dilip (P.W.4), Rajdeep alias Guddu (P.W.5), and Kalander Singh (P.W.7) were the eye witnesses of the incident. Trial Court after considering the evidence found that the statement of all the witnesses were recorded after considerable delay. Statements of injured Dilip (P.W.4) and Rajdeep (P.W.5) were recorded on 26-11-1993 and statements of Bhagirath (P.W.3) and Kalandarsingh (P.W.7) were recorded on 3-12-1993. Court found that the evidence of witnesses is not consistent. There was no compliance of section 157, Criminal Procedure Code. The empty cartridge which was recovered from the spot was not fired from the 315 bore gun. The Court has found that Balveer was also present in the police station, but his arrest was shown after 14 days and the gun was also recovered from him after 14 days and the Court also recorded several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence including the one of motive and also placed reliance on the defence evidence that the gun, which was of Bhagwan Singh, brother of the accused Sukhdev, was deposited at P. S. Sodhva District Jhabua few days before the incident. Therefore the case against Sukhdev is based on falsehood and he has not used the aforesaid gun in the aforesaid offence and the Court acquitted all the respondents and found that the evidence of all the eyewitnesses was not at all reliable. No other independent witnesses were examined. Sunil was also 'not examined and considering the various lapses found that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations-and charges by producing the reliable evidence and therefore, acquitted the respondents, against which the State has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. On behalf of the State as well as complainant, the case was argued very vehemently. It was submitted that the trial Court has not considered the evidence in true prospects. The medical evidence is corroborative evidence. The conduct of Balveer is corroborated by medical evidence. It was further submitted that I.O. as well as the doctor both were helping accused persons and there were lapses in the investigation. Merely on the ground of lapses in the investigation, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. The medical evidence is corroborative evidence. The conduct of Balveer is corroborated by medical evidence. It was further submitted that I.O. as well as the doctor both were helping accused persons and there were lapses in the investigation. Merely on the ground of lapses in the investigation, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. It was also argued that in comparison to the ocular evidence, the opinion evidence of doctor as well as ballistic expert is not reliable and the ocular evidence cannot be discarded simply on the ground that it is not corroborated by other evidence and in such case, the Court has to give weightage to the ocular evidence and placed reliance in the case of State of M. P. vs. Dharkole and others, 2005 SCC (Cri) 225. 5. In reply the learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment and placed reliance in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2008(1) Crimes 135 (SC) and submitted that when there is prima facie evidence that the fire was not made by the gun recovered, the appellants were entitled for acquittal. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely scrutinized the prosecution evidence afresh on record. Trial Court has recorded a finding that prosecution has failed to prove that after the FIR when the copy of the FIR was forwarded to the Magistrate that has not been proved by the prosecution and there is no compliance of section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is true that many a time compliance of section 157 is not fatal but it is only fatal when the other independent evidence is not reliable. In that case if there is no compliance of section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code, that raises a serious doubt about the prosecution story. Though the trial Court has also considered this aspect of the matter that in the reference letter for medical examination (Ex.P/17), the names of the assailants and the weapon were not mentioned and he considered the prosecution story as doubtful on that ground but in our considered opinion on that ground the prosecution story cannot be thrown out. Court has considered this material aspect of the matter in para 18 of the judgment that the accused persons were arrested after much delay. Court has considered this material aspect of the matter in para 18 of the judgment that the accused persons were arrested after much delay. Shriramsingh (P.W.2) has admitted in his cross-examination that Balveer had reached on the police station on the day of incident but he was not arrested and his arrest has been shown on 6-12-1993 as per arrest memo (Ex.P/6). Court has also considered this aspect of the matter that statements of Dilip (P.W.4) and Rajdeep (P.W.5) were recorded on 26-11-1993 and statements of Bhagirath (P.W.3) and Kalandarsingh (P.W.7) were recorded on 3-12-1993, whereas the witnesses have admitted that they remained in the village and I.O. has not explained the delay. 7. No sufficient explanation has been furnished by the prosecution of late recording of statement of witnesses if these witnesses were the eye witnesses of the incident. In this regard the trial Court has considered the decision in the case of Ganesh Bhawan Patel vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 and Shashank Shekhar Morya vs. State of M. P., 1981 JLJ 646 . Court has also considered that Bhagirath (P.W.3) and Kalandar Singh (P.W.7) were present. In the Courtyard and Bhagirath (P.W.3) has admitted that if one is standing at the Courtyard of Babusingh, he cannot see what is happening in the roof of the house of Shriram. They were also unable to say who caused injury to whom. The information was given to Kalandar Singh (P.W.7) by his son Sunil and Sunil was not examined. He has only heard the sound of fire and his evidence is also not found firm whether he had seen the incident and his evidence suffers from omissions and material contradictions. Thus, it was held that Bhagirath (P.W.3) and Kalandar Singh (P.W.7) were not the eye witnesses of the incident. There is no evidence of motive also. The weapons used by Sukhdev and Ramdas were not seized, nor the aforesaid gun was seized from his brother Bhagwan Singh, nor they were identified. Therefore, it was also found doubtful that accused Sukhdev Singh and Ramdas had fired. There is no evidence of motive also. The weapons used by Sukhdev and Ramdas were not seized, nor the aforesaid gun was seized from his brother Bhagwan Singh, nor they were identified. Therefore, it was also found doubtful that accused Sukhdev Singh and Ramdas had fired. Rajdeep Singh (P.W.5) who is the son of Shriram, has admitted that he had not seen any empty cartridge or pellet on the roof, whereas empty cartridge of 315 bore gun was seized from the roof on 22-11-1993 and the gun was seized from Balveer by Ex.P/7 and was referred for examination of Ballistic Expert. It was argued that the gun which was seized was tampered and foresight of the gun was missing and safety pin of the gun was not working properly. Ballistic Expert found that the gun was in running condition and some evidence was found that fire was made. It was found that the aforesaid empty cartridge was not fired from the aforesaid gun and on that basis the case against Balveer was found doubtful, Dr. O. P. Kastavar (P.W.12) had medically examined Dilip Singh and found blackening on the left forearm along with lacerated wound but that day doctor had not given any opinion that by which weapon these injuries were caused nor this opinion was given that whether these injuries were simple or grievous. Again a quarry report was sent and opinion was sought and some radio opaque shadows was found on the right forearm and left side on the chest but in the head and left forearm no radio opaque shadow was found, nor any operation was done and some pellets were recovered from the body. Doctor has not opined that by which weapon the injuries were caused. Nor any opinion was given whether the injuries were dangerous to life. Therefore, the Court found that he received some pellet injuries and if he received some pellet injuries, then pellets were also not found on the place of incident, but before the Court Dr. Kastavar (P.W.12) had opined that injured received injuries lacerated wound by hard and blunt object. Likewise in the post-mortem report (Ex.P/19), no entry wound was found, nor any bullet was found nor it was recovered from the body of the deceased. In the cross examination doctor has admitted that these lacerated wounds may be caused by hard and blunt object. 8. Likewise in the post-mortem report (Ex.P/19), no entry wound was found, nor any bullet was found nor it was recovered from the body of the deceased. In the cross examination doctor has admitted that these lacerated wounds may be caused by hard and blunt object. 8. On the medical evidence it was argued that the medical evidence is in the shape of opinion and cannot prevail over ocular evidence. It is true to some extent but what we find that the ocular evidence is also not consistent and clear and does not come within the purview of reliable and clinching evidence. There must be consistency in the evidence. In the Criminal cases if some doubts are raised and they are not removed by the prosecution, they may be fatal for the prosecution and on scrutiny of the prosecution case Court may consider those doubts whether they are fatal to the prosecution. As per the ballistic expert report (Ex.P/22) the aforesaid opinion of doctor is totally contradictory. 9. This is an appeal against acquittal. The finding cannot be reversed by the appellate Court merely on the ground that the another view is also possible. If the findings are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, then only the Appellate Court can interfere in the findings. If we place reliance on one evidence, by the same time the case is hit by another evidence, which destroys the prosecution case. On minute security it is found that the gun which was alleged to have been used by Sukhdev in commission of crime, belongs to his brother Bhagwan Singh, who was Head Constable at P. S. Jhabua and the gun remained deposited three weeks ago at P. S. Sodhva, Jhabua and trial Court has considered that in such circumstances it cannot be held that Sukhdev used the fire arm in the commission of crime, which falsify the prosecution story. There is no other reliable evidence to connect it or to place reliance. 10. We may profitably refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samghaji Hariba Patil vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 113, wherein in the case of appeal against acquittal, the Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under :- "We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court has taken a contrary view. We may profitably refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samghaji Hariba Patil vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 113, wherein in the case of appeal against acquittal, the Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under :- "We have noticed hereinbefore that the High Court has taken a contrary view. Had the High Court been the first Court, probably its view could have been upheld, but it was dealing with a judgment of acquittal. We have taken notice of the depositions of the main prosecution witnesses only to show that the view of the learned trial judge cannot be said to be perverse or the same was not possible to be taken. While dealing with a case of acquittal, it is well known, the High Court shall not ordinary overturn a judgment if two views are possible." 11. Similarly, it would not be out of place to mention here another decision in the case of Kashiram and others vs. State of M. P., (2002) 1 SCC 71 , wherein it has been held :- "In case of appeal before High Court against acquittal, though judgment of trial Court acquitting the accused was somewhat perfunctory and lacking clarity in certain respects, on the whole, the approach and conclusions of the trial Court were not perverse or vitiated by any serious error warranting interference with the verdict of acquittal. View taken by trial Court was a reasonably possible view; the Apex Court held that High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal." 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents as no credible evidence is available. The burden was on the prosecution to prove the charges by producing the evidence beyond reasonable doubt but in this case prosecution has failed and reasonable doubts are available in the prosecution case which leads to this conclusion that no interference is called for in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed.