JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for parties. 2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal challenging the order of acquittal of respondent passed by Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.65/1981 from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149 IPC. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that FIR No.317/80 (Ex.P23) was registered at Police Station, Bayana, District Bharatpur on 23rd October, 1980 at about 6.30 PM on the basis of Parcha Bayan (Ex.18) of PW-9 Gayalal, wherein it was alleged that Mst.Mohno had married to Mukhtar and after death of Mukhtar, she re-married with Tikam, elder brother of Mukhtar. However, Tikam also expired. Thereafter, she was living with her parents. It was alleged that being elder brother of Tikam, Bheem had agreed to marry Mst.Mohno with Gayalal and took Rs. 20,000/-. However, father of Mst.Mohno refused to send Mst.Mohno with Gayalal. It was further alleged that number of persons from the other side came and attacked on their party. It was further alleged that a gun shot injury was inflicted upon him by Maharaj and accused Jhamoli inflicted a gun shot injury on the person of Sujan. Initially a case under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 IPC was registered, but Sujan succumbed to injuries and the case was converted to offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. After completion of investigation, Police submitted a charge sheet against 20 persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge. Learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons for the offences u/ss.147, 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149 IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. In support of the case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced documentary evidence Ex.P1 to P50. The statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defense, statement of DW1 Mst.Mohno was recorded. 5. During the pendency of trial, one accused Girraj died and proceedings abated against him. Learned trial court after considering the submissions of parties and record of the case, acquitted all the remaining 19 accused persons from all the charges. Being aggrieved with the same, the State of Rajasthan preferred Leave to Appeal No.13/84 against two accused persons only, namely; Maharaj Singh S/o Hukum and Jhamoli S/o Sunder Lal. 6. Learned trial court after considering the submissions of parties and record of the case, acquitted all the remaining 19 accused persons from all the charges. Being aggrieved with the same, the State of Rajasthan preferred Leave to Appeal No.13/84 against two accused persons only, namely; Maharaj Singh S/o Hukum and Jhamoli S/o Sunder Lal. 6. This Court vide order dated 3rd February, 1984 granted leave to appeal against the accused respondent Jhamoli and refused to grant leave against Maharaj Singh, therefore, this appeal was registered against respondent Jhamoli. 7. The submission of the learned Counsel for State is that Ex.P23 FIR was registered on the basis of parcha bayan Ex.P18 of injured witnesses Gayalal, statement of deceased Sujan was also recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ex.P22, deceased succumbed to injuries inflicted by accused-respondent by a gun shot which is corroborated from post mortem report, therefore, there was ample evidence available on record to prove the charges against the respondent but the trial court committed illegality in acquitting the respondent from all the charges. Therefore, the judgment passed by learned trial court is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent be punished for the charges levelled against him. 8. Learned Counsel for the accused defended the impugned judgment passed by learned trial court and submitted that the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in detail and has rightly disbelieved the prosecution story. He referred the reasons assigned by learned trial court for disbelieving the prosecution story, statement of prosecution witnesses, for acquittal of the accused-respondent and submitted that there is no perversity or illegality in the finding of the learned trial court so as to interfere in the order of acquittal of the respondent recorded by learned trial court. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for parties in the light of reasons assigned for acquittal of the accused respondent and record of the trial court. 10. Ex.P23 FIR was registered on the basis of parcha bayan of Gayalal PW9 wherein it was alleged that Sujan died due to gun shot injury inflicted by respondent Jhamoli and Gayalal also sustained injuries inflicted by accused Maharaj Singh. Learned trial court has considered the statement of PW-9 Gayalal in detail. 10. Ex.P23 FIR was registered on the basis of parcha bayan of Gayalal PW9 wherein it was alleged that Sujan died due to gun shot injury inflicted by respondent Jhamoli and Gayalal also sustained injuries inflicted by accused Maharaj Singh. Learned trial court has considered the statement of PW-9 Gayalal in detail. We have also examined the statement of PW-9 Gayalal in detail. Learned trial court has considered the statement of PW-9 Gayalal along with statement of his two brothers PW-12 Pooran and PW-13 Harkishan, but a bare perusal of their statements will show that both the witnesses have not supported and corroborated the statement of PW-9 Gayalal and the statement of PW-9 was also self-contradictory. 11. Learned Counsel for the State could not point out any illegality or perversity in the finding of learned trial court in this regard recorded in Para 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment. After considering the statements of PW-9 Gayalal, PW-12 Pooran and PW-13 Harkishan, we are satisfied that the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the statement of PW-9 Gayalal and we do not find any perversity in the said finding so as to interfere with the same. 12. Learned trial court has considered another set of evidence i.e. statement of PW-1 Charan Singh, PW-15 Sardar and PW-2 Pyar Singh. PW-15 was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-2 Pyar Singh has specifically stated that he did not state during the investigation in his statement Ex.D3 that Jhamoli was having any gun with him. His statement was found to be contrary to his own statement recorded by learned trial court. 13. Learned trial court has also considered third set of prosecution evidence i.e. statement of PW-7 Girraj, PW-8 Batey and PW-10 Karan who did not support the prosecution story. PW-8 Batey is an independent witness and he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. He has specifically stated that Jhamoli was having no gun with him at the time of incident. PW-10 was declared hostile by the prosecution. 14. It is relevant to mention that incident in the present case took place in presence of Mst.Mohno who was examined in the present case as DW-1, who has specifically stated in her statement that Harkishan, Gayalal, Sujan, Pooran and Nirbhay abducted her forcibly and against her will and she was kept in wrongful confinement by them. 14. It is relevant to mention that incident in the present case took place in presence of Mst.Mohno who was examined in the present case as DW-1, who has specifically stated in her statement that Harkishan, Gayalal, Sujan, Pooran and Nirbhay abducted her forcibly and against her will and she was kept in wrongful confinement by them. If we read the statement of PW-8 Batey along with the statement of DW-1 Mst.Mohno, we find that genesis of the case has been suppressed or withheld by the prosecution and learned trial court was absolutely right in disbelieving the prosecution story and in recording the finding that infact there was a gun shot fire from the side of accused and only thereafter, some firing took place from both sides. It is relevant to mention that one person Hari Kishan from the side of accused died at the spot. Investigating agency has not explained the death of Hari Kishan in the said occurrence and has not come with true version. Learned trial court has thoroughly examined all the three sets of prosecution witnesses and we are satisfied that the finding of the learned trial court is based on sound reasonings which call for no interference by this Court. 15. Learned trial court has also considered the statement of Doctor, injury report as well as post mortem report and has rightly recorded the finding that oral testimony is not corroborated with the documentary evidence. 16. We are conscious that this appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by learned trial court and it is settled law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. A reference may be given to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard to the case reported in AIR 2007 SC 1236 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bacchudas alias Balaram & Ors. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further laid down a principle that order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless there are some compelling and substantial reason or circumstances for doing so. 17. We have examined the prosecution evidence in detail, particularly, the statements of PW-9 Gayalal, PW-8 Batey, DW-1 Mst. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further laid down a principle that order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless there are some compelling and substantial reason or circumstances for doing so. 17. We have examined the prosecution evidence in detail, particularly, the statements of PW-9 Gayalal, PW-8 Batey, DW-1 Mst. Mohno, PW12 Pooran, PW-13 Harkishan, PW-1 Charan Singh, PW-2 Pyar Singh and we find that no other view, than the view taken by the trial court, is possible, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In these circumstances, we are of the view that learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent. 18. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******