JUDGMENT S.C. Agarwal, J. Earlier, the leave to appeal was refused and appeal was dismissed vide order dated 23.7.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble O.P. Garg, J and Hon'b'le Onkareshwar Bhatt, J. Order dated 23.7.2001 was challenged by State of U.P. before the Supreme Court by means of Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2002, which was allowed by the Apex Court vide order dated 13.6.2008 and the Apex Court held that leave to appeal ought to have been granted by the High court and the High Court was directed to hear the appeal on merits. This Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.10.1998 passed by Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur acquitting the accused-respondent in Sessions Trial No.536 of 1997, under Section 302 IPC arising out of Case Crime No.119 of 1997, P.S.Tilhar, district Shahjahanpur. The incident took place on 25.4.1997 at about 10 A.M. in Mohalla Hindu Patti, P.S Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur. First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 11 A.M at P.S Tilhar by the complainant Ashfaq P.W.1, the son of deceased Smt. Sappo. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that sister of the complainant Ashfaq was married with Guddu- the brother of accused-respondent Nanhe. Smt. Sappo ( deceased) had given a house to Guddu for residence but Guddu used to harass his wife. On this account, the sister of the complainant left the house of Guddu and had gone to her elder sister Faiyyazi at Shahjahanpur. On 25.4.1997, Guddu asked for a bucket from Smt. Sappo but she refused to provide him the same. Guddu felt insulted and narrated the incident to his brother Nanhey (respondent). On the same day at about 10 A.M., the complainant Ashfaq (P.W.-1), his brother Anwar (P.W.-2) and deceased Smt. Sappo were going on a Rickshaw to bus station for onwards journey to Shahjahanpur. When their Rickshaw reached in front of the mosque, situated near Bulaqi Das Inter College, Nanhey stopped the Rickshaw and told Sappo that she had insulted his brother and would have to face the consequences. Ashfaq, Anwar and Smt. Sappo alighted from the Rikshaw to save their lives but Nanhe caught hold of Smt. Sappo and shot her dead. When their Rickshaw reached in front of the mosque, situated near Bulaqi Das Inter College, Nanhey stopped the Rickshaw and told Sappo that she had insulted his brother and would have to face the consequences. Ashfaq, Anwar and Smt. Sappo alighted from the Rikshaw to save their lives but Nanhe caught hold of Smt. Sappo and shot her dead. On the basis of written record submitted by Ashfaq, the case crime No.119 of 1997, under Section 302 IPC was registered against the respondent Nanhey at Police Station Tilhar and the investigation was taken over by S.S.I, Bhojraj Singh, P.W.6. The Investigating Officer performed inquest on the dead body of Smt. Sappo, sealed it and sent the same for post mortem examination. He found four empty cartridges of 315 bore lying on the spot, sealed the same and prepared memo Ext 12. He also took samples of blood stained and plain earth from the spot and sealed them separately and prepared memo Ext. Ka-13. He also inspected the place of occurrence, prepared site plan, interrogated the witnesses and submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Autopsy on the dead body of Smt.Sappo was performed by Dr. Rakesh Gupta P.W.4 on 26.4.1997 at 4.15 P.M. and he found the following ante- mortem injuries on the person of the deceased: - 1.Lacerated wound 2 x 0.5 cm on the left side of face 1.5 cm below the left eye. 2.Multiple small gunshot wounds of entry in an area of 12 x 4 cm with a major central wound of size 2 x 1.5 cm x connecting with injury No.3 on front and outer aspect of right upper arm 12 cm above the elbow. Blackening present, Margins inverted. 3.Gunshot wound of exit 0.5 x 0.5 cm connecting with injury no.2 in the axillary region of right upper arm on the arm side of axilla, Margins averted. 4.Gunshot wound of entry 1.5 x 1.5 cm x chest cavity deep on the thorax side of right axilla, just in opposition with injury no.3 when arm is kept just by the side of the body ( in line). Margins inverted. 5.Gunshot wound of exit 0.5 x 0.5 x connecting with injury no.4 on the left side back 3 cm from the spine at the level of T-8 vertebra, Margins averted. Margins inverted. 5.Gunshot wound of exit 0.5 x 0.5 x connecting with injury no.4 on the left side back 3 cm from the spine at the level of T-8 vertebra, Margins averted. 6.Gunshot wound of entry 4 x 3 cm x chest cavity deep on the front of chest on the sternum and supra sternum notch, blackening present. 7.Gunshot wound of exit 5 cm from the spine on the back, right side of spine at the level of T-12 vertebra, Margins averted. 8.Multiple small gunshot wounds of entry with blackening present, in an area of 15 cm x 6 cm on the right fore arm, just above the wrist. Size varying from .5 x .5 to .2 x.2 cm. Direction of injury no.2 is from right lateral front side to left and back. Direction of injury no.6 is from the front to back and down ward. In the stomach, 50 gram pasty food was found. Semi digested food and gases were found in the small intestine, whereas faecal material and gases were found in the large intestine. Caused of death was shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries. The death was caused about one and half day ago. During the trial, charge under Section 302 IPC was framed by learned Sessions Judge. The respondent denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined, as many as six witnesses to prove its case. Ashfaq PW1 and Anwar PW2 are the witnesses of fact and are sons of deceased. Dr. Rakesh Gupta-P.W.3 proved the Autopsy report. Head Constable Mushtaque Ali- P.W is the scribe of chick F.I.R and has proved chick F.I.R Ext. Ka-3 and copy of G.D. Ext. Ka-4 relating to registration of the case. P.W.6, Bhojraj Singh is the first Investigating Officer who perform inquest, proved various recovery memos, recovered blood stained and plain earth and also four empty cartridges from the spot. He also prepared the site plan. Some Pal Singh, P.W. 5 is the second Investigating Officer who interrogated some of the witnesses on 25.7.1997 and submitted charge sheet against the respondent Nanhey. The respondent Nanhey in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegation and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The respondent Nanhey in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegation and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case due to enmity. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.10.1998, acquitted the accused-respondent Nanhey of the charge under Section 302 IPC. Hence this Appeal. We have heard Shri P.S. Pundir, learned AGA on behalf of appellant and Shri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the accused respondent and have gone through the trial court record. Learned AGA contended that there are two eye witnesses of the incident namely, Ashfaq (P.W.-1) and Anwar Hussain (P.W.-2). Both the witnesses are sons of the deceased and the trial court was not justified in disbelieving them on flimsy grounds. It was contended that on autopsy, four fire arm entry wounds were found on the dead body, which have been explained by the witnesses and in the FIR, number of shots were not mentioned and no adverse inference could be drawn on this ground. It was further submitted that there was no enmity between the witnesses and the respondent and there was no reason for the witnesses to falsely depose against the respondent. It was argued that name of Anwar as a witness of the incident was mentioned in the FIR and no adverse inference could be drawn on the ground that Anwar was interrogated by the Investigating Officer after about three months. It was contended that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court is perverse and deserves to be set aside. Per contra, Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents contended that from a recital of the FIR, it is apparent that a single shot was allegedly fired by the respondent but on autopsy, eight injuries were found on the dead body consisting of four entry wounds, three exit wounds and one lacerated wound on head. The lacerated wound suffered by the victim on left side of face has not been explained by the prosecution. It was contended that from injury no. 2 and injury no. The lacerated wound suffered by the victim on left side of face has not been explained by the prosecution. It was contended that from injury no. 2 and injury no. 8, it appears that these injuries were caused by a 12 bore weapon and could not have been caused by 315 bore country made pistol whereas at the place of incident, four 315 bore empty cartridge shells were recovered, which shows that the cartridge shells were planted by the police. In the alternative, it was suggested that more than one weapons were used in the crime, one of which could be of 315 bore and other of 12 bore and this fact contradicts the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and their presence at the place of incident becomes highly doubtful. It was also submitted that the motive alleged by the prosecution is not established and the respondent had no motive to kill the deceased and had no grievance against her. When we analyse the judgment of the trial court in the light of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any perversity in the same. In a case where there are eye witnesses, the motive looses its importance. However, if any motive is alleged, it is imperative on the prosecution to prove the same. The alleged motive is that in the early morning, on the date of incident, Guddu asked the deceased for a bucket, which was declined. This is a very trivial matter and could not have caused any motive to commit murder of the deceased by brother of Guddu. The motive is extremely weak. On the other hand, there is specific motive for the witnesses to falsely implicate the respondent. Both the witnesses P.W.-1 and P.W-2 are sons of the deceased, who live in a house in front of the house of the deceased. The deceased had permitted her son in-law Guddu to live in her house for the last three years. This could have caused a grievance to the sons of the deceased. It was also alleged that Guddu used to harass the sister of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and for this reason, she had left the house of Guddu and started living with her sister. This could have caused a grievance to the sons of the deceased. It was also alleged that Guddu used to harass the sister of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and for this reason, she had left the house of Guddu and started living with her sister. The wife of Guddu could have been the best witness in this regard but she was not examined by the prosecution and, therefore, this part of motive is also not proved. We agree with the finding of learned Sessions Judge that there was no occasion for the respondent (brother of Guddu) to take any kind of revenge with the deceased as he could not have any grievance against the deceased. It is also apparent from the record that the incident took place in the market outside the mosque but except two sons of the deceased, no independent witness was interrogated by the Investigating Officer nor any independent witness was examined during trial. In these circumstances, the testimony of the related witnesses is to be scrutinized very carefully and with great caution. It was also stated by P.W-1 that at the time of incident, the witnesses and the deceased were going on a Rickshaw but Rickshaw puller ran away at the time of incident and was not examined during trial. P.W.-1- the complainant is himself a Rickshaw puller. At the time of incident, he must have been at his job plying his own Rickshaw and there was no occasion for him to be present with the deceased going on a Rickshaw plied by another Rickshaw puller. Learned Sessions Judge has also laid stress on the point that two witnesses and the deceased were going on a rickshaw and must be sitting very close to each other and even then, though four or more shots were fired, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 did not receive any injury, whereas, according to P.W.-1, his mother was shot at when she was on rickshaw. As far as lacerated wound on right side of face is concerned, the same is of no consequence as the same could have been caused by fall of the deceased on the ground but injuries no. 2 and 8 are multiple small gun shot wounds of entry which clearly shows that these injuries were caused by 12 bore weapon whereas four cartridge shells of 315 bore were recovered from the spot. 2 and 8 are multiple small gun shot wounds of entry which clearly shows that these injuries were caused by 12 bore weapon whereas four cartridge shells of 315 bore were recovered from the spot. If the recovery is taken to be correct, then at least two types of weapons must have been used and this falsifies the entire case of the prosecution that only the respondent fired at the deceased. Initially, when the FIR was lodged, there was no mention of the fact that the deceased fired more than once but after seeing the post-mortem report, it was very easy for P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 to say in their examination in-chief that the accused shot the deceased four times. We agree with the conclusion of learned Sessions Judge that FIR version is contrary to the eye witnesses testimony recorded during trial and the witnesses made improvements in their testimony to make it in consonance with the medical evidence. Learned Sessions Judge also laid emphasis on the point that Anwar (P.W.-2) was interrogated after three months from the incident and no reason for this delay is forthcoming, though Anwar happens to be the son of the deceased and there was no reason for not recording his statement on the date of incident itself. It is established law that if two views on the evidence are possible, the High Court should not interfere in the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court, unless the judgment is perverse or is against the evidence on record. In view of the aforesaid, we have come conclusion that the incident did not take place in the manner alleged by the witnesses. There is a single accused. At least, two types of weapons must have been used. Two injuries are definitely of a 12 bore weapon but cartridge shells recovered from the spot were of 315 bore. The witnesses claimed that the respondent fired four shots at the deceased whereas the FIR impliedly mentions a single shot. There was no motive for the respondent to commit murder of mother in-law of his brother. The motive is also not established. Independent witnesses have not been examined. No effort was made to produce the Rickshaw Puller in evidence. In these circumstances, findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or unjustified. There was no motive for the respondent to commit murder of mother in-law of his brother. The motive is also not established. Independent witnesses have not been examined. No effort was made to produce the Rickshaw Puller in evidence. In these circumstances, findings recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or unjustified. In our considered opinion, no ground for interference is made out and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Government Appeal is dismissed. Office is directed to transmit the lower court records alongwith a copy of this judgment to the trial court within a week.