Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 2.11.95, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which, it acquitted the accused (now respondent ). 2. The prosecution case, as summarized, proceeded in the manner that on 23.1.94, at about 9.00 p. m. Santokh Singh, aged about 11 years son of Darbara Singh, informed him that Karnail Singh, his brother and malkiat Singh, accused an employee who was posted in the power grid at Sangha wore trading abuses. Accompanied by Ms. Ninder Kaur wife of Karnail Singh to pacify them Darbara Singh proceeded towards the power grid. At that time, they were carrying a burning lantern. When they reached close to Karnail Singh and Malkiat Singh, accused, Darbara Singh, asked them, as to why they were quarreling with each other and trading abuses. It was stated that in their presence Malkiat Singh gave a tamba (an uneven heavy wooden twig) blow on the head of Karnail Singh as a result whereof he slumped at the spot. Malkiat Singh disappeared from the spot carrying away the tamba with him. Both Darbara Singh and his sister-in-law were taking Karnail Singh to their farm-house hen or the way he succumbed to the injury caused on his person. After leaving Ms. Ninder Kaur and other members of the tamely at the spot guard the dead-body of Karnail Singh Darbara singh went to the village. After collecting karam Singh sarpanch he left for lodging the report police station Sardulgarh. His statement exhibit PD was recorded on the basis whereof the first information report was registered. Thereafter, Inspector Gurjit singh, Officer In-charge of the Police Station accompanied by other Police Officials, reached the spot, with the witnesses, where the dead body of Karnail Singh, was lying. Two constables were directed to guard the dead-body. After the day-break, Inspector gurjit Singh, examined the dead-body and prepared inquest report exhibit PC. He lifted the blood stained earth, which was put in a small tin container. He converted the same into a parcel. The parcel was taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo. The dead-body of Karnail Singh, along with the police papers was entrusted to Karam Singh, Constable, for post-mortem examination in Civil Hospital, Mansa. The turban, a shawl and pair of shoes were lying near the dead-body. The same were taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. The parcel was taken into possession, vide separate recovery memo. The dead-body of Karnail Singh, along with the police papers was entrusted to Karam Singh, Constable, for post-mortem examination in Civil Hospital, Mansa. The turban, a shawl and pair of shoes were lying near the dead-body. The same were taken into possession, vide a separate recovery memo. Visual site plan exhibit PH with correct marginal notes was prepared. Exhibit PH-1 the site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared. The accused was arrested about 2.30 p. m. on 24.0 1.94. On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement, regarding the concealment of tamba. His disclosure statement was recorded, in pursuance whereof, he got recovered tamba P1. 3. The Constable, who was deputed for post-mortem examination, on the dead body produced the police papers, post-mortem report and a sealed parcel, containing the belongings of the deceased. All the sealed parcels were deposited by Inspector Gurjit singh with the Moharrir Head Constable. 4. The motive for the occurrence, was that, the accused had dug earth in the passage leading to the farm houses of Karnail singh and Darbara Singh, for laying water pipes, connecting the power grid, with the water tank which blocked their passage, karnail Singh had asked Malkiat Singh, to sound his department, for the clearance of the obstruction in the passage, which evoked eerie of Malkiat Singh. After the completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. 5. On his appearance, in the Court of the committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the court of sessions, charge under Sec.302 of the indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Rajinder Kumar Garg, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa PW1, who along with Dr. Asha Kiran, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of Karnail Singh, on 24.1.94, at 3.30 p. m. , in Civil Hospital. Mansa, and found the following injury on the same: "lacerated wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm on the middle of scalp on the top of scalp. Clotted blood was present. The wound was bone deep. On dissection underlying parietal bones were fractured. Brain matter was lacerated. Mansa, and found the following injury on the same: "lacerated wound 5 cm x 1.5 cm on the middle of scalp on the top of scalp. Clotted blood was present. The wound was bone deep. On dissection underlying parietal bones were fractured. Brain matter was lacerated. Dura matter was lacerated, subdural haematoma was present and clotted blood was also present in the cranial cavity. " The injury was found to be ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctor, was shock and hemorrhage on account of the injury. The probable time that lapsed between the injury and death, was immediate to few hours, and between death and post-mortem within 24 hours. The doctor also opined that the injury could be caused with tamba P1. 7 Dr. Asha Kiran, Medical Officer, Civil hospital Mansa (PW2), a member of the board, which conducted the post-mortem examination, on the dead-body of Karnail singh, also vouch safed the correctness of the post-mortem examination report. 8. Darbara Singh (PW3), brother of the deceased an eyewitness and the first informant, deposed, in terms of the prosecution version, as stated above. 9. Ninder Kaur (PW4), the widow of the decease also corroborated the statement of darbara Singh. 10. Assistant Sub Inspector Naib Singh (PW5), associated with Inspector, Gurjit singh, Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. 11. Inspector Gurjit Singh (PW6), the investigating Officer, conducted the investigation, prepared various memos, and arrested accused. 12. Karam Singh, Sarpanch (PW7), deposed that four-five before his death, karnail Singh, deceased, complained to him, about the digging of drain by the officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board blocking the passage, leading to their farm houses. 13. Constable Pal Singh (PW8), took the special report for delivery of the same to the illaqa Magistrate, and tendered his P. K. 14. Head Constable Gurnam Singh (PW9), formal tendered into evidence affidavit PL. 15. The Public Prosecutor, for the State, tendered into PM, the report of the Chemical Examiner. Thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence. 16. The statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He admitted his presence in Sangha Grid of the Punjab State electricity Board, at the time of occurrence. Thereafter, he closed the prosecution evidence. 16. The statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. He was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication. He admitted his presence in Sangha Grid of the Punjab State electricity Board, at the time of occurrence. He died in the incriminating circumstances, appearing against him, in the prosecution evidence, in its entirety contending that he was falsely, implicated in misconceived suspicion, at the instance of Jaggar singh, a Junior Engineer of the Punjab state Electricity Board, posted at the power grid. He however, did not lead any evidence in defence and closed the same. 17. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, on record the trail Court acquitted the accused (now respondent ). 18. Feeling aggrieved the instant appeal was filed by the State of Punjab/appellant. 19. We have heard the counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 20. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of Darbara Singh, complainant- cum -eyewitness, duly corroborated by Ms. Ninder Kaur, another eyewitness, as also by the medical evidence was sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt. She further submitted that the first information report was of ante-timed. She further submitted that the trial Court was thus wrong is acquitting the accused. 21. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court, was right in coming to the conclusion that the first information report was ante-timed to cover up the delay within was utilized for false implication of the accused, introduction of false witnesses, and convocation. He further submitted that trial Court was also right, in coming to the conclusion the evidence of the eye-witness the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the judgment of the trial Court, recording acquittal of the accused (now respondent), is correct and does not deserve any interference. 22. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to rival contentions, raised by the counsel for the parties in our considered opinion the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reason to be recorded, herein after. 22. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to rival contentions, raised by the counsel for the parties in our considered opinion the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reason to be recorded, herein after. It is no doubt true, that in appeal against acquittal, the trial court can reappraise and re-appreciate the entire evidence, produced by the parties, and can differ with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, if it finds that it (Trial court) acquitted the conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court was a reasonably possible view, then it cannot interfere with the finding of acquittal. The alleged occurrence took place on 23.1.94, at 9.00 p. m. , at village Sangha, situated at a distance of 9 kms from Police Station sardulgarh. This fact was admitted by Naib singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, village sangha, is connected with Sardulgarh, by metalled road. House of Karam Singh. Sarpanch is at a distance of 10 killas from the place of occurrence, as admitted by darbara Singh, PW3. That distance could be covered within half an hour. Darbara singh, PW3, admitted that he and Karam singh, sarpanch, went in a jeep to Police station Sardulgarh, where the first information report was registered on the basis of his statement, at about 12.30 a. m. , on 24.1.94. The special report reached the court of Illaqa Magistrate, at 120 Clock, in the afternoon, at Mansa, on 24.1.94. Mansa is at distance of 45 Kms from sardulgarh. Sardulgarh and Mansa are also connected with a metalled road. Both these places are on the national highway, leading to Haryana. Prompt despatch of the first information report, to the Illaqa Magistrate is one of the checks to find out as to whether, the same (first information report) was lodged at the time when it was purported to have been lodge. The explanation, which was furnished by Constable Pal Singh, PW8, who took the special report to the Illaqa magistrate, was to the effect that he did not leave the police station, at night, but left the same at 9.30 a. m. In affidavit PK he stated that there was a strike of the buses on that day. He made an improvement in affidavit PK, with regard to the factum that there was a strike of the buses on that day. He made an improvement in affidavit PK, with regard to the factum that there was a strike of the buses on that day. When he was confronted with his statement db, the factum that the buses were not available, during the right, and the bus drivers were on strike, on the next day, was not found recorded therein. The mere fact that the first information report reached the illaqa Magistrate, at 12 Oclock, in the afternoon, on 24.1.94 i. e. after 12 hours, in itself, clearly proved that the same did not come into existence, at 12.30 a. m. , on 24.1.94. It is also clearly proved that the first information report was lodged sometime after the day break, on 24.1.94 after due deliberations, consultations and confabulations. In case, such a conclusion is reached that the first information report, was result of confabulations, no importance could be attached to the prosecution version as disclosed therein, on the ground that the possibility of utilization of the time, to concoct the story and false implication of the accused wholly or partly could not be ruled out. It was not the case of Darbara Singh, that out of fear, he did not move out of his house or from the place of occurrence. On the other hand, it was stated by him, that he immediately left the place of occurrence, leaving Ms. Ninder Kaur, to guard the dead-body and after taking the Sarpanch, along with him went to lodge the report. In swaran Singh V/s. State1 a case decided by division Bench of this Court, it was observed that the importance of prompt despatch of copy of the F. I. R. to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence as provided under Sec.157 especially in cases involving commission of murder can be hardly over emphasized and it is high time that the prosecution agency should be award of the adverse consequences flowing from the late receipt of the special report by the Magistrate and in the absence of the strict compliance of Rule 34.5 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Vol. III, the endorsement by the Magistrate regarding time a which special report was received by him will be decisive. III, the endorsement by the Magistrate regarding time a which special report was received by him will be decisive. In the later part of the judgment their Lordships observed that the time at which the special report was received by the Magistrate goes a long way in coming to proper conclusion as to time at which the first information report may have been written/lodged or registered. The prompt registration of the first information report without delay immediately following the commission of the offence, ensures that the complainant party did not have the time to deliberate and consult before bringing the prosecution version on the record. In case conclusion is reached that the first information report was the result of some deliberations an argument is available to the accused to show that no importance should be attached to the prosecution version as disclosed in the first information report as time was utilized to concoct and fabricate the prosecution story wholly or partly. The trial Court was thus, right in holding that no explanation was furnished, as to why the first information report, was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, after 12 hours and under these circumstances, it could be said that the possibility of ante-timing the same could not be ruled out. The trial Court was also right that on account of this reason, the prosecution case was doubtful as the other evidence produced by the prosecution, could not be said to be reliable. The finding of the trial Court, in this regard, being correct, is affirmed. 23. The next question, that arises for consideration, is as to whether, Darbara Singh, pw3, and Ms. Ninder Kaur were present at the time of the alleged occurrence or not. It was proved, from the evidence on record, that Malkiat Singh, accused was present in the power grid throughout the night of 24.1.94, when the police party headed by inspector Gurjit Singh, reached there. He was also present at 7.00 a. m. , on 24.1.94. He was also present in the power grid at 2.30 p. m. , on 24.1.94, when he was actually arrested. Had the first information report come into existence at 12.30 a. m. , on 24.1.94, then Gurjit Singh, Inspector, would have arrested Malkiat Singh, accused, at night, when he along with other police officials went to the power grid. He was also present in the power grid at 2.30 p. m. , on 24.1.94, when he was actually arrested. Had the first information report come into existence at 12.30 a. m. , on 24.1.94, then Gurjit Singh, Inspector, would have arrested Malkiat Singh, accused, at night, when he along with other police officials went to the power grid. He could also arrest him at 7.00 a. m. , on 24.1.94, but he was not arrested, at that time. Gurjit Singh. Inspector, PW6, when asked, as to why, he did not arrest Malkiat Singh, accused, at about 2.30 a. m. , on 24.1.94, when he was found present on duty, in the power grid, he explained that till then, there was also proof available against the accused, to warrant his arrest. He was also put a question, as to whether, he was aware of the provisions of Sec.41 of the Code of Criminal procedure. In answer to this question, he stated that he was aware of the said provisions. Had the first information report, come into existence by 12.30 a. m. , or had Darbara singh, PW3 and Ninder Kaur, PW4, witnessed the occurrence, in which Malkiat singh, accused, had allegedly give a tamba blow, on the head of the deceased, Malkiat singh would have certainly been arrested, as in those circumstances, would be said that there was sufficient evidence against him, to warrant his arrest. Even Gurjit singh, Inspector PW6, stated that the accused was not put under surveillance at 2.30 a. m. win he was present on duty, in the power grid. The police papers for postmortem examination, were shown to have reached Civil Hospital, Mansa, at 3.00 p. m. , on 24.1.94, whereas, the inquest report was shown to have been prepared at 7.00 a. m. This also goes to prove that both these witnesses were not present, at the time of the alleged occurrence, but after the day break, when the dead-body of Karnail Singh, was found, they were introduced as witnesses and the accused was falsely implicated. The trial Court was thus, right in coming to such a conclusion. 24. The occurrence allegedly took place on 23.1.94. In the month of January, there is acute cold, that too in the fields near the power grid. The trial Court was thus, right in coming to such a conclusion. 24. The occurrence allegedly took place on 23.1.94. In the month of January, there is acute cold, that too in the fields near the power grid. The information with regard to the trading of abuses was passed on to darbara Singh, and Ninder Kaur, by santokh Singh, a kid 11 years old, son of darbara Singh, PW3, at about 9.00 p. m. In the villages, much before 9.00 p. m. in the winter season, the villagers sleep. No explanation was furnished, as to under what circumstances, and for what purpose. Santokh Singh, was found present in the fields near the power grid, at about 9.00 p. m. , that too, in the acute cold in the months of January especially when it was dark. From the evidence, on record, it was not proved that Santokh Singh, disclosed to them, as to where Karnail Singh deceased, and Malkiat Singh, accused, were trading abuses. However, both these witnesses, proceeded to the power grid, surrounded by the boundary wall. The entry gate of the power grid, is on the northern side, whereas, the occurrence is shown to have taken place, somewhere, near the boundary wall of the same, on the southern side. It was not proved, as to since how long they had been exchanging abuses. It does not appeal to reason, that Malkiat Singh, accused, would keep on waiting till the arrival of Darbara singh, PW3, and Ninder Kaur, PW4, before allegedly giving a tamba blow, on the head of the deceased. Santokh Singh, was not examined as a witness, to prove that actually both Karnail Singh, deceased, and malkiat Singh, accused, were trading abuses and that he informed Darbara Singh and Ninder Kaur, about the same. No explanation was furnished, as, to why, this material witness was withheld. Even darbara Singh, and Ninder Kaur, gave different versions, as to whom Santokh Singh, narrated the said incident, in the first instance, and how they left for the spot. Darbara Singh, PW3, stated that Santokh singh told him, about the trading of abuses by Karnail Singh, and Malkiat Singh, accused, and he collected Ms. Even darbara Singh, and Ninder Kaur, gave different versions, as to whom Santokh Singh, narrated the said incident, in the first instance, and how they left for the spot. Darbara Singh, PW3, stated that Santokh singh told him, about the trading of abuses by Karnail Singh, and Malkiat Singh, accused, and he collected Ms. Ninder Kaur, from her house, whereas, Ninder Kaur, pw4, stated that, on coming to know about the said fact, from Santokh Singh, in her own house in the presence of her daughters, she informed Darbara Singh, about the same, at his farm-house, in the presence of his family members, and from there, they darbara Singh and Ninder Kaur proceeded to the grid. Strange enough, none of the in members of the family followed them. These factors clearly proved that the prosecution case was false. The trial Court was right, in coming to such a conclusion, on careful scrutiny of the evidence. 25. Even the motive for the occurrence was not proved the obstruction of the pathway leading to the farm-house of Karnail singh, was shown to have been caused, on account of digging of the earth, for laying the water pipes. The accused was neither in-charge of the power grid, nor he was an employee of the Public Health Department, which was to supply the water from the water tank. Under these circumstances, the accused was not concerned with the digging or filling of the earth. Since Malkiat Singh, was not at all concerned with the obstruction of the path-way, the question of asking him to take the authorities into confidence did not at all arise. It appears that such a motive was propped up, later on just with a view to provide strength to the prosecution version. Since the motive set by the prosecution was not proved its case became doubtful. 26. Even the exact place of occurrence in the instance case, was not proved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to Ninder Kaur, PW4, the distance between the place of occurrence and the boundary wall of the grid was about 5/6 killas, whereas, according to Inspector gurjit Singh, PW6, the distance between the boundary wall of the grid was about 50 metres and the dead-body was lying at a distance of about 100 mtrs from the place of actual occurrence. According to the prosecution witnesses, after having been injured, Karnail Singh, covered a distance of 50 mtrs, before his death actually, occurred, and he was assisted by Darbara Singh PW3. The nature of injury, which was received by Karnail Singh, could be said to be very serious. Under these circumstances, it was not at all possible for him, to cover a distance of 50 mtrs, in an injured condition. This probablizes the defence version that the dead-body was lifted from the grid, and placed in the fields. This circumstance also clearly showed that the occurrence did not take place, in the manner, deposed to by the prosecution witnesses. 27. Coming to the disclosure statement, allegedly made by the accused, and recovery allegedly got effected by him, in pursuance thereof, it may be stated here, that it was a cooked up affair by the Investigating officer to connect the accused with the present case. Gurjit Singh, Inspector, PW 6, stated that after the arrest of the accused, he continued interrogating him, but he did not suffer any disclosure statement. When he was not ready to suffer a disclosure statement immediately after his arrest, it is not known, as to what compelled him after a couple of days, to make statement. The perusal of disclosure statement PG, shows that the accused allegedly disclosed that tamba, in question, had been concealed by him in a heap of rubbish and not in dung hill, lying by the side of southern wall of the power grid, whereas Assistant sub-inspector Nasib Singh, PW5, and Inspector Gurjit singh, PW6, stated that the accused disclosed that the tamba, had been concealed by him in the dung hill, without reference to any Southern wall. All these witnesses were, therefore, were discrepant, with regard to the place, where the accused had allegedly concealed the tamba P1. This clearly goes to show that neither any disclosure statement was made by the accused, nor he got recovered tamba P1, but it was planted against him so as to strengthen the case of the prosecution. The trial Court was right in coming to such a conclusion. 28. The view taken by the trial Court, in acquitting the accused, was a reasonably possible view. The appellate Court, therefore, cannot interfere with the judgment of acquittal merely, on the ground, that another view was also possible. The trial Court was right in coming to such a conclusion. 28. The view taken by the trial Court, in acquitting the accused, was a reasonably possible view. The appellate Court, therefore, cannot interfere with the judgment of acquittal merely, on the ground, that another view was also possible. The judgment of the trial Court deserves to be upheld. 29. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal, dated 2.11.95, rendered by the trial court, acquitting the accused (now respondent), is upheld. Appeal dismissed.