JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- Leave to appeal is sought under the provisions of section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. by Parsu Ram for challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 22.3.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in favour of Chanderveer @ Chand, Hemant and Devender alias Deva. The above named three persons were sent to stand trial by Police Station City, Gohana for an offence punishable under sections 115 read with section 120-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act by way of FIR No.133 dated 6.5.2007, on the following allegations of facts. 2. Parsu Ram lodged a report on 6.5.2007 to the effect that he has a plot near a petrol pump at Gohana and has constructed his house thereon. The plots of his nephews namely, Satpal and Ved Parkash are also situated near the same. Bhaiya Ram and his brother Satbir encroached upon the passage leading to the plots of nephews and wife of the complainant. They had filed a suit in this regard in the court at Gohana which was decreed and appeals against the same are pending. On account of this litigation, the family of Bhaiya Ram keeps a grudge against the complainant. On 6.5.2007, at about 2.00 PM, the complainant was present at his house. His brother, Jagdish came in a perplexed condition and said that while he was coming to the house of the complainant and was near the house of Bhaiya Ram then Hemant son of Bhaiya Ram was sitting in a office type room with doors open having two strangers with him. He was asking his companions to teach a lesson to Parsu Ram who had filed a case in the High Court. He then addressed his companions by their names, Devender and Chand and told them that he was giving a sum of of Rs. 30,000/- in advance and would pay the remaining amount after the work is done. He told both of them to kill Parsu Ram after arranging the weapon. Listening to this, the complainant also got frightened. Therefore, the complaint was made against Hemant about his hiring two persons and having hatched a conspiracy to kill the complainant. On due investigation, including recovery of pistols from Chandveer alias Chand and Devender alias Deva with two live cartridges each, challan was prepared against them. 3. Listening to this, the complainant also got frightened. Therefore, the complaint was made against Hemant about his hiring two persons and having hatched a conspiracy to kill the complainant. On due investigation, including recovery of pistols from Chandveer alias Chand and Devender alias Deva with two live cartridges each, challan was prepared against them. 3. Charge was framed against the accused vide order dated 11.9.2008 for an offence punishable under sections 115 read with section 120-B IPC and 25 of the Arms Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. After due trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge found the prosecution to have failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and acquitted them of the charge vide judgment dated 22.3.2011. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, leave to appeal is sought against that judgment. 6. I have heard Mr. Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the file. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court has ignored the evidence of conspiracy coming in the evidence of Jagdish, examined as PW-4 at the trial. He has submitted that even there was evidence of recovery of illicit weapons with live cartridges from Chandveer alias Chand and Devender alias Deva to whom Hemant gave contract of killing Parsu Ram. He has submitted that this evidence is sufficient to show at least that arguable points are there in the matter and he has prayed for grant of leave to appeal. 8. A perusal of the statement of Jagdish about which Parsu Ram has made a statement in the FIR would show that the details furnished by Jagdish are unnatural. Even if it is believed that such type of contract was being entered in an office like room with doors wide open, the person giving the contract of killing would not address the persons before him by their names. At least, it can be said that while giving the advance money, the amount may also not be spoken about. 9. There is a history of litigation and disputes between the parties. While on the one hand, the accused Hemant can be said to have a motive to get Parsu Ram liquidated, Parsu Ram also has got a motive to hatch a conspiracy to falsely involve his adversary in this manner. 10. 9. There is a history of litigation and disputes between the parties. While on the one hand, the accused Hemant can be said to have a motive to get Parsu Ram liquidated, Parsu Ram also has got a motive to hatch a conspiracy to falsely involve his adversary in this manner. 10. Learned trial court has noticed the fact that the country-made pistols are said to have been recovered from Chandveer alias Chand and Devender alias Deva by the police officials without associating any independent witness. Learned trial court has noticed decisions in two cases, Nachhattar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 68 and Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000 (3) CC Cases 184, where non-joining of independent witness in cases of recovery of arms and ammunition was held sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution as not safe for holding the accused guilty. 11. I have found no perversity or unreasonableness in the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court vide the impugned judgment. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the same and consequently, dismiss the petition for leave to appeal. ---------0.B.S.0-----------