Ramesh Sinha, J.— Heard Sri D.I. Faridi, learned A.G.A. on admission of the present appeal. 2. We went through the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2004 passed by Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Deoria by which respondents No.1 to 4, namely, Virendra Pandey, Gautam Pandey, Sunil Pandey and Raj Kumar were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506, I.P.C. passed in Session Trial No. 187 of 2002. The allegation was that on account of some enmity accused Kameshwar Singh employed accused Virendra Pandey as a clerk under the understanding with him that he will kill the deceased Krishnadeo Yadav, who was ideologically affiliated to a particular political party of the State of U.P. The purpose for which the said Virendra Pandey was employed as a clerk in the school run by Kameshwar Singh not being fulfilled, he was removed from service with an assurance that if he fulfilled the promise, he would again be employed. It so happened that when the deceased was coming after campaigning in an election, he was remonstrated and assaulted by all the accused persons. It is specifically alleged that accused Santosh Pandey was armed with Farsa and gave a solitary blow on the head of the deceased with that weapon. 3. In spite of there being general allegations against the respondents also of assaulting the deceased, the doctor who first examined the injured, i.e., P.W.12, Dr. B.K.D. Tripathi found a solitary lacerated wound measuring 7 cm x 5 cm on the right side of skull of the deceased Krishnadeo Yadav about 9 cm above the right ear. The brain matter was found exposed along with bone and signs of bleeding was present. He did not find any other injury on the injured. 4. P.W.9, Dr. B.B. Bhatt, who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 21.12.2003, i.e., after about one month from the date of occurrence, i.e., 29.11.2003, had recorded as many as four injuries on the dead body. Those were as follows: "(1) Septic wound 8 cm x 6 cm x muscle deep present on top of scalp, 5 cm above right ear, and 5 cm behind anterior hari-margin. Pus, slough, debris and unhealthy granulation tissue present on wound. (2) Abraison 1.5 c.m. x 1.0 c.m. on mid of fore-head, 5.0. c.m. above, root of nose. Those were as follows: "(1) Septic wound 8 cm x 6 cm x muscle deep present on top of scalp, 5 cm above right ear, and 5 cm behind anterior hari-margin. Pus, slough, debris and unhealthy granulation tissue present on wound. (2) Abraison 1.5 c.m. x 1.0 c.m. on mid of fore-head, 5.0. c.m. above, root of nose. (3) Abrasion 2.0 cm x 2.0 c.m. on present left side of temporal region, 5.0 on above left ear. (4) Old head scar mark present on the right scaplar region, 3.0 c.m. linear scar." 5. On internal examination, P.W.9 found fracture temporal and perital bones of both sides in multiple pieces and surgical craniotomy present on the right side of temporal region under which the bone pieces were found missing. Brain meminges and brain matters were found repaired and stitched. Extra-dural and sub-dural haemotoma was present all over the brain. The death had occurred on account of above ante-mortem head injuries. 6. The learned trial Judge thereafter went on to consider the evidence of witnesses and analyzed the same in the light of arguments of parties and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence indicating the sharing of common object and acting in prosecution thereof so as to kill the deceased and, as such, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution had not been able in proving the charges against the respondents though the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home the charges against accused Santosh Pandey. The learned trial Judge has contrasted the evidence of doctor as also the witnesses and has discussed the same in paragraph-49 of the impugned judgment to hold that the lack of finding of any injury immediately by P.W.3 indicated that the allegations were simply bald as they appeared against the present set of respondents and their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful. 7. After having gone through the impugned judgment what we find is that the view taken by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the present set of respondents may also be a probable view and if that is so, then the impugned judgment cannot be said to be perverse. 8. The present government appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. _