JUDGMENT [Per : Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J.] This Government Appeal, arises out against the judgment and order dated 18.2.1998, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, in S.T. No. 368 of 1996, whereby the accused/respondents Ranjeet Singh, Jaswant Singh and Gurmel Singh have been acquitted of the charges U/Ss 147, 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that accused/respondents and complainant Harmeet Singh are related to each other. Prior to the incident, litigation pertaining to three acres land was going on between Jagjeet Singh, father of the complainant Harmeet Singh, and the accused persons and there was enmity among them in respect of the land. On 25.3.1996 deceased Jagjeet Singh had gone to attend a marriage at the house of his friend Gurmeet Singh in village Ganeshpur. When he did not return home upto 8-9 p.m., then complainant Harmeet Singh, Gurmel Singh, frined of the father of complainant, and Narpal Singh, maternal uncle of the complainant, went in search of his father in a tractor on Bazpur road. When these persons reached on Bazpur road, one kilometer away from their Birha Farm, then they in the red light of the tractor saw that motorcycle of Jagjeet Singh was lying in the field of Chaudhary. They stopped the tractor. They also saw that accused Ranjeet Singh was crushing Jagjeet Singh by tractor in the field of Chaudhary and accused Gurmel Singh and Jaswant Singh were sitting on the Bonnet of the tractor. On account of this incident, Jagjeet Singh died at the spot. The complainant and his companion tried to get down from the tractor so as to save Jagjeet Singh, but accused Ranjeet Singh and his 3-4 associates did not permit them to do so and extended threats to their lives also. Due to the fear of the accused persons, the complainant did not lodge the F.I.R. in the night. On 26.3.1996 at 6.40 A.M. the complainant lodged the F.I.R., Ext. Ka-1, at the police station. On the basis of written F.I.R., chick F.I.R., Ext. Ka-10 was drawn at the police station. 3. The investigation of the case was conducted by Sri Roop Singh Yadav, Station Officer. On 26.3.1996, S.I. P.C. Verma, P.W.5, accompanied the I.O. to the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report, Ext. Ka-2. He also prepared challan laas, Ext. Ka-10 was drawn at the police station. 3. The investigation of the case was conducted by Sri Roop Singh Yadav, Station Officer. On 26.3.1996, S.I. P.C. Verma, P.W.5, accompanied the I.O. to the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report, Ext. Ka-2. He also prepared challan laas, Ext. Ka-5, Police Form-35, Ext. Ka-6, sketch dead body, Ext. Ka-7. Thereafter he sealed the dead body and sent it for postmortem. On 26.3.96 the I.O. recorded the statements of Harmeet Singh, complainant and Onkar Singh. He inspected the spot and prepared site-plan, Ext. Ka-10. He also took into possession the motorcycle of deceased from the field of Chaudhary, and the memo, Ext. Ka-8 was prepared by P.C. Verma. On 27.3.96 he recorded the statements of Swarn Singh, Gajendra Singh and arrested accused Ranjeet Singh, Jaswant Singh and Gurmel Singh. On 30.3.1996 he recovered the tractor no. 733 from Atma Singh, father of accused Gurmel Singh and prepared its memo Ext. Ka-6. 4. The post mortem on the dead body of deceased Jagjeet Singh was conducted by Dr. S. Ahmad, in L.D. Bhatt Hospital Kashipur on 26.3.1996, at 2 P.M. and he has found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person :- 1. Lacerate wound 4 cm x .15 cm x scalp deep over forehead, 5 cm above the left eye brow. 2. Lacerated wound 13 cm x 10 cm x bone deep over right side head involving also right side forehead and right side face. 3. Abraded contusion 20 cm x 3.5 cm over right side upper part of front of chest and shoulder. 4. Multiple abrasion 22 cm x 8 cm over lower part of front of right side chest and upper part of abdomen. 5. Multiple abrasion 12 cm x 6 cm over upper part of left side abdomen. 6. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over left side chest, 5 cm above the nipple. 7. Abrasion 4 cm x 2 cm over medial side of left thigh, 4 cm above the knee joint. 8. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm over front of right knee joint. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was coma, as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He prepared post mortem report Ext. Ka-18. 5. The further investigation of the case was entrusted to Harkamal Singh, station officer. 8. Abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm over front of right knee joint. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was coma, as a result of ante-mortem injuries. He prepared post mortem report Ext. Ka-18. 5. The further investigation of the case was entrusted to Harkamal Singh, station officer. He, after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet, Ext. Ka-17 against the accused persons. 6. The Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, vide his order dated 2.7.1996, committed the case to the court of Sessions. 7. The learned Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital framed charges U/Ss 147, 302/149 I.P.C. against the accused/respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Harmeet Singh, P.W.2 Narpal Singh, P.W.3 Rajendra Singh, P.W.4 Constable Sunil Kumar, P.W.5 P.C. Verma, P.W.6 Head Constable Onkar Singh, P.W.7 Roop Singh Yadav, P.W.8 Harkamal Singh and P.W.9 Dr. Shamim Ahmad. 9. The accused in their statements U/S 313 Cr.P.C. admitted their relationship with the complainant and they also admitted their enmity with the deceased prior to the incident. However, they have denied the entire prosecution case. 10. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire evidence on record, acquitted the accused persons from the charges levelled against them. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed this appeal. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. Learned G.A. has raised the submission that there was admitted enmity between the accused/respondents and the deceased pertaining to land and in this regard litigation was going on among themselves and there was a strong motive with the accused persons to commit the murder of deceased but the trial court has committed a manifest error by holding that the accused persons had no motive to commit the crime. 14. We have considered the above submission of learned Government Advocate and we do not find any substance in it. P.W.1, Harmeet Singh, son of deceased Jagjeet Singh is the complainant in the case. In the written F.I.R., Ext. Ka-1 he has noted this fact that there was litigation between his father and the accused persons pertaining to 3 acres of land and due to this enmity accused have committed the murder of his father. He has repeated the above fact in his statement. In the written F.I.R., Ext. Ka-1 he has noted this fact that there was litigation between his father and the accused persons pertaining to 3 acres of land and due to this enmity accused have committed the murder of his father. He has repeated the above fact in his statement. In his cross-examination he admitted that on the land in dispute accused persons were in possession from the very beginning and the complainant and his father had no possession over it. The complainant side had won the case in the S.D.M. Court but before Commissioner they had lost the case and against the order of Commissioner they had gone in the High Court but he was not in a position to tell as to whether the appeal in the High Court was dismissed or allowed. It is not the prosecution case that prior to this incident there was ever any incident of marpit or quarrel between the accused and the deceased relating to the disputed land or on account of some other reason. Therefore the accused side had no grudge against the complainant side as they were winning party and were in possession of the dispute land. Therefore, the accused had no motive to commit the murder of the deceased, rather the complainant side had motive to falsely implicate the accused/respondents. 15. Learned Government Advocate also submitted that in the instant case although P.W.1, Harmeet Singh is the son of deceased Jagjeet Singh and P.W.2, Narpal Singh is also related with the deceased, as the deceased was sister’s husband of P.W.2 Narpal Singh, but relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness because a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. In support of his submission learned G.A. has cited before us the case of Kalegura Padana Rao & another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2008(2) SCC (Cri) 197. 16. We have considered the above submission and also gone through the ruling cited by the learned G.A. and we find that the facts of the cited case are not applicable in the instant case. In the case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that – “In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. In the case (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that – “In regard to the interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version, relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.” 17. After a careful analysis of evidence of P.W.1, Harmeet Singh and P.W.2 Narpal Singh, who are said to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, we find that their evidence is not cogent and credible. P.W.1, Harmeet Singh has deposed that on 25.3.1996 in the night at about 10 p.m., he, his maternal uncle Narpal Singh and Gurmel Singh, a friend of deceased Jagjeet Singh, went in search of Jagjeet Singh from the house of Jagjeet Singh. According to this witness Jagjeet Singh had gone to Ganeshpur to attend a marriage function but he did not return home in the night. When these persons reached at Bazpur road, one kilometer away from the Farm of complainant, then they, in the light of their tractor, saw that the motorcycle of Jagjeet Singh was lying in the field of Chaudhary. He stopped the tractor there and saw that accused Ranjeet Singh, Gurmel Singh and Jaswant Singh were on their tractor. Ranjeet Singh run over the tractor and Gurmel Singh and Jaswant Singh were sitting on the bonnet. Ranjeet Singh run over the tractor on his father and after taking round he again run over the tractor on his father, due to which his father was crushed and died over the field. This witness further deposed that they wanted to save his father, but due to the fear of the persons standing there armed with weapons, they could not do so. This deposition of P.W.1, Harmeet Singh is quite illogical. Had this witness seen the incident of crushing his father beneath the tractor by the accused, he would have certainly tried to save his father. This deposition of P.W.1, Harmeet Singh is quite illogical. Had this witness seen the incident of crushing his father beneath the tractor by the accused, he would have certainly tried to save his father. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was caught hold by some one or he was tied with rope when the accused were crushing him beneath the tractor, therefore, the story of crushing of the deceased beneath the tractor seems to be a concocted one. P.W.1, Harmeet Singh cannot be said to be a natural and probable witness of the incident. The incident had occurred about one kilometer away from the house of deceased and according to P.W.1, Harmeet Singh he had reached at the place of occurrence all of a sudden; while doing search of his father. Therefore, he would be termed as a chance witness and the evidence of a chance witness is unsafe to record conviction of an accused. 18. Likewise the evidence of P.W.2, Narpal Singh is also highly improbable. He is also a chance witness and his presence at the house of deceased Jagjeet Singh and then at the place of occurrence is doubtful. He also deposed that when they reached at the place of occurrence then in the light of tractor they saw that Ranjeet Singh was crushing Jagjeet Singh by the tractor in the field and deceased was crying for help but they could not get down from their tractor to save Jagjeet Singh, as some persons standing at the road threatened to kill them. He further deposed that there was enmity between accused and the deceased in respect of some land. In the cross examination this witness has admitted that he did not tell this fact to the I.O. that when they tried to save the deceased, the persons standing there gave threat to kill them if they get down from the tractor. 19. It is also pertinent to mention here that there has been an inordinate delay in recording the statement of P.W.2, Narpal, by the I.O. U/S 161 Cr.P.C. The incident took place on 25.3.1996 and the statement of this witness has been recorded by the I.O. on 3.5.1996, whereas according to this witness he was present at the place of occurrence upto 10 A.M. on the next date of the occurrence. 20. 20. The presence of P.W.1 Harmeet Singh and P.W.2, Narpal Singh at the place of occurrence and witnessing the occurrence by them, is also doubtful for the reason that the police had summoned the dog squad at the place of occurrence and this fact in itself shows that the actual incident was not seen by any one and only for that reason the dog squad was summoned by the police in order to make search for the criminals and to get some clue from the spot. 21. The medical version also does not support the prosecution. In the inquest report Ext.Ka-2, only two injuries have been noted on the person of the deceased, whereas Dr. Shamim Ahmad, P.W.9, found as many as 8 injuries on the dead body of the deceased and this possibility cannot be ruled out that the injuries noted in the post mortem report were in the exaggerated form. In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that if a tractor runs over the head and leg of the deceased then his head would be crushed and bones of leg would also get fractured, which is quite absent in the present case. The doctor in the cross examination also admitted that there was no injury of crushing on the body of the deceased. According to the specific prosecution case tractor was run over the deceased 2-3 times and in that situation crush injuries should have been there on the person of the deceased. 22. Learned G.A. also submitted that the trial court has committed an error of law by discarding the convincing and reliable evidence of eyewitnesses in view of inconsistent medical evidence. He has cited the case of State of M.P. v. Sughar Singh & Ors. reported in 2008(8) Supreme 202. 23. The facts of the above cited case are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. As pointed in the earlier part of this judgment, the evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.1, Harmeet Singh and P.W.2 Narpal Singh has been considered to be unreasonable, therefore, the acquittal of the accused/respondents on the ground of inconsistency in medical evidence, is proper. 24. The defence version is that the death of the deceased has occurred due to accident. As pointed in the earlier part of this judgment, the evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.1, Harmeet Singh and P.W.2 Narpal Singh has been considered to be unreasonable, therefore, the acquittal of the accused/respondents on the ground of inconsistency in medical evidence, is proper. 24. The defence version is that the death of the deceased has occurred due to accident. Head light of motorcycle was broken, light of indicator was also broken and there was dent in the tank of the motorcycle and these signs indicate towards the accident of the motorcycle and the accused have been falsely implicated due to the bitterness of the complainant towards the accused as they were in possession of land in dispute and they have also won the case from the Commissioner’s court. 25. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant also submitted that evidence of P.W.1, Harmeet Singh and P.W.2, Narpal Singh is consistent and inspire confidence, therefore, reliance could be placed on it. He also submitted that the F.I.R. in the case has been lodged on the next day of occurrence, as the complainant could not proceed to the police station in the night of the day of occurrence due to the fear of the accused persons. Hence, there was no reason to disbelieve his explanation for lodging the F.I.R. with delay. Learned counsel in support of his submissions has cited before us the following cases – 1. State of U.P. v. Hari Mohan & Ors., reported in 2004(4) Crimes 234 (SC). 2. Dharamvir and others vs. State of U.P., reported in 1989 All. L.J. 454. 26. We have gone through the above rulings and find that the facts of these cases are different and are not applicable to the facts of present case. As has been noted by us in the earlier part of this judgment that the evidence of eyewitnesses P.W.1, Harmeet Singh P.W.2, Narpal Singh, is not trustworthy, there has been strong motive with the complainant to falsely implicate the accused/respondents with the crime, the medical evidence also does not support the prosecution version, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the prosecution story. 27. Here it is also noted that in the case of Peerappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 461, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-13 has held as under – 13. 27. Here it is also noted that in the case of Peerappa and others vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 461, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-13 has held as under – 13. On an anxious consideration of the contentions in the light of the evidence on record and the findings of the trial court, we are of the view that the High Court out not to have interfered with the order of acquittal. In this regard we may recall the observations made by R.C. Lahoti, J. (as High Lordship then was), speaking for a three-Judge Bench in Kashiram v. State of M.P. it was observed thus – ‘though the High Court while hearing an appeal against an acquittal has powers as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against a conviction and while exercising its appellate jurisdiction the High Court can reappraise the evidence, arrive at findings at variance with those recorded by the trial court in its order of acquittal and arrive at its own findings, yet, the salutary principle which would guide the High Court is – if two views are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. It follows as a necessary corollary that it is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then to dislodge those reasons. Failure to discharge this obligation constitutes a serious infirmity in the judgment of the High Court.” 28. It is thus clear that while entertaining an appeal from a judgment of acquittal, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of acquittal. If two view are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other recording a conviction, the High Court would not interfere merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court its view would have been one of recording a conviction. It is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then dislodge those reasons. It is obligatory on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to consider and discuss each of the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then dislodge those reasons. Failure to discharge this obligation would constitute a serious infirmity in the judgment of reversal. 29. After a careful consideration of evidence on record, we do not find any reason for interference with the reasons recorded by the learned trial court. The learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused/respondents and accordingly acquitted them. 30. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal of accused/respondents is hereby confirmed.