JUDGMENT M.C. Tripathi, J.: - This Government Appeal No. 1967 of 1982 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of U.P. against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.1982 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 354 of 1981 (State of U.P. Vs. Shishupal Singh & 5 others) in Case Crime No. 155 of 1981 under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149 IPC, PS Tilhar, District-Shahjahanpur. The learned Trial Court has acquitted all the six respondents-accused from the charges of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 323/149. The impugned judgment and order has been challenged on the ground that it is against the evidence on record and is against the law and facts of the case. The judgment being perverse and has caused miscarriage of justice. 2. We have heard Ms. Usha Kiran, learned AGA and Sri Apul Mishra holding brief of Sri P.N. Mishra, Senior Advocate for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that Arjun Singh son of Kaptan Singh PW-1 resident of village Jiraunia, PS Barkheda, district-Shahjahanpur was married to the daughter of Peshkar Singh (deceased) resident of village Dhamanpur. Peshkar Singh (deceased) had given his field on ''batai' to accused Hemraj, Pyare. On 26.03.1981 Kaptan Singh PW-1, Arjun Singh and others had come to the house of Peshkar Singh (deceased) in connection with ''Dashthan', at about 4: 00 PM Peshkar Singh (deceased) had gone to saw his field accompanied with Kaptan Singh PW-1, Arjun Singh. Peshkar Singh (deceased) had an altercation with all six accused, namely, Shishupal Singh, Ziledar Singh, Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh, Pyarel Lal, Hemraj and Shyam Bahadur Singh. Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh armed with gun and remaining five accused persons armed with lathies. According to the prosecution version, Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh fired at Peshkar Singh (deceased) with his gun. Peshkar Singh (deceased) died on the spot. The incident was seen by Kaptan Singh PW-1, Veer Pal PW-2, Nirbhan Singh PW-4, Arjun Singh and others. It has also been alleged that in the incident Kaptan Singh PW-1 and Arjun Singh had also sustained injuries. 4. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged at PS Tilhar District-Shahjahanpur on 26.03.1981 at 8: 00 PM by Kaptan Singh PW-1. It has also been alleged that in the incident Kaptan Singh PW-1 and Arjun Singh had also sustained injuries. 4. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged at PS Tilhar District-Shahjahanpur on 26.03.1981 at 8: 00 PM by Kaptan Singh PW-1. The case was registered by Head Constable Sughar Singh and investigation was taken up by SI R.K. Saxena PW-7. After the inquest, the dead body of Peshkar Singh was brought to the mortuary house by Constable Jitendra Nath Tiwari PW-5 and post mortem of the dead body of Peshkar Singh was conducted by Dr. M.L. Tandon PW-6. On 28.03.1981 at 3: 15 PM doctor found multiple gun shot injury wounds of entry and exit, one abrasion, four contusions and one lacerated wound on the body of deceased Peshkar Singh. The stomach of the deceased contained two ounce of semi digested food. In the opinion of Dr. M.L. Tandon PW-6 that death caused due to shock and haemorrhage, injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Dr. M.L. Tandon PW-6 further stated in the cross-examination that death of Peshkar Singh could taken place on 26.03.1981 at about 9: 00 PM and the gun shot wounds found on the body could be the result of more than one gun shots. Dr. R.P. Gulati PW-3 examined injured Kaptan Singh PW-1 and Arjun Singh on 26.03.1981 at 10: 15 PM. Kaptan Singh PW-1 sustained one contused wound while Arjun Singh has no visible injury. Injury received by Kaptan Singh were of simple in nature. 5. After necessary investigation and usual inquiry all the six accused were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. They all pleaded not guilty and attributed their false implication on account of enmity. After discussing the evidence of Kaptan Singh PW-1, Veer Pal PW-2 and Nirbhan PW-4, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the six accused persons merely on the ground that the testimony of eye witnesses Kaptan Singh PW-1, Veer Pal PW-2 and Nirbhan Singh PW-4 were not consistent with the medical evidence inasmuch as multiple gun shot wounds found on the body of the deceased Peshkar Singh could not be caused by single fire-arm shot and lathi injuries. The eye witnesses Kaptan Singh PW-1, Veer Pal PW-2 and Nirbhan Singh PW-4 consistently stated that the occurrence took place at about 4: 00 PM in the field of Peshkar Singh (deceased). The Investigating Officer R.K. Saxena PW-7 recovered blood stained earth from the place of the incident. As per the versions of Kaptan Singh PW-1, Veer Pal PW-2, Nirbhan Singh PW-4 all of them stated that accused Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh had fired once from his gun at Peshkar Singh (deceased). Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They challenged the prosecution evidence and attributed their false implication in the case due to party fiction and enmity. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, learned Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 15.05.1982 acquitted all the six accused from charges levelled against them. Feeling aggrieved, the instant Government Appeal has been preferred. 7. Perusal of the record, shows that the learned Trial Court has made an appraisal of evidence in accordance to the law and recorded finding of acquittal of the accused on various grounds. 8. We have given our anxious thoughts over the evidence on record keeping in mind the First Information Report, prosecution version and the grounds of acquittal of the accused recorded by the learned Trial Court. In the present matter, prosecution has examined eye witnesses Kaptan Singh PW-1, Veer Pal PW-2, Nirbhan Singh PW-4 who have consistently stated that incident took place on 26.03.1981 at 4: 00 PM in the field of Peshkar Singh (deceased) and all of them have stated that the accused Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh had fired a single shot from his gun at Peshkar Singh (deceased). It may also be mentioned here that Dr. M.L. Tandon PW-6 found multiple gun shot wounds of entry which existed on the body of deceased Peshkar Singh. Therefore, whole version which has been established by the prosecution from the eye witnesses falsify their statements whereas all of them stated that accused, namely, Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh had fired a single shot from his gun at Peshkar Singh (deceased) and other co-accused had used lathies while making assault on the deceased. 9. Therefore, whole version which has been established by the prosecution from the eye witnesses falsify their statements whereas all of them stated that accused, namely, Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh had fired a single shot from his gun at Peshkar Singh (deceased) and other co-accused had used lathies while making assault on the deceased. 9. Bare perusal of the post mortem examination report shows that the doctor found multiple gun shot wounds of entry and exit specially two gun shots wound on the top and outer left shoulder 2.5 cm apart from each other measuring 0.3cmx0.3cm. There were also various discrepancies which were clearly noted by the learned Trial Court specially that Kaptan Singh eye witness stated that there was injuries sustained to the deceased Peshkar Singh and that other co-accused those were having lathies in their hand when they all had given blows either twice or thrice to the deceased, if it was so then it is the deceased would have minimum eight assaults on his body but as per the version of Dr. M.L. Tandon only five assaults of lathies were visible on the body of the deceased, this also falsify the statement of Kaptan Singh also had stated that deceased Peshkar Singh had sustained injuries on his right side whereas in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he had categorically averred that the deceased had sustained injury at his right side but as per the medical report the deceased had sustained injury on the left side. This also shows that PW-1 had not seen the occurrence. As per the statement of witnesses, at the time of incident, the deceased face was towards east and Om Prakash Singh fired at him from west in such a situation all the injuries had to be from the front side and there was no possibility of sustaining any injury in his back. This also falsify the story of the prosecution. In the present matter, so far as the post-mortem injuries do not corroborate the version of the prosecution and witnesses regarding actual occurrence, medical evidence is absolutely inconsistent with the testimony of all the witnesses examined in the instant case. 10. This also falsify the story of the prosecution. In the present matter, so far as the post-mortem injuries do not corroborate the version of the prosecution and witnesses regarding actual occurrence, medical evidence is absolutely inconsistent with the testimony of all the witnesses examined in the instant case. 10. From record also, it transpires that the witnesses were interested witnesses inasmuch as in his cross-examination of Kaptan Singh himself had accepted that Veer Pal PW-2 and Nirbhan Singh PW-4 were both real cousins of the deceased Peshkar Singh whose statements were not in consonance with the post-mortem report of the deceased. It is also surprising as the statement of Kaptan Singh, shows that at the time of occurrence, Peshkar Singh (deceased) was standing in between the field of Babu Singh but as per site plan at the time of occurrence the deceased was shown actually present in the field of Suresh Pal which was situated in the north of field of Babu Singh. This also demonstrate that at the time of occurrence Kaptan Singh was not present at the place of occurrence and as per the site plan after sustaining injury Peshkar Singh (deceased) fell down from ''A' place to ''C' place whereas as per the version of Kaptan Singh that after the gun shot the deceased had started running towards west. This statement was also not being correct on the conflicting statement that after sustaining injuries deceased ran away towards north and creates doubt on presence of Kaptan Singh at the place of occurrence. The discrepancies had thoroughly been discussed by the learned Trial Court specially the eye witnesses had made statement that after receiving gun shot the deceased ran away 10 to 15 paces and as per the version of doctor M.L. Tandon that after sustaining such kind of injuries, there was every likelihood of succumbing at the spot and there was no likelihood for escaping after sustaining bullet shot as in the instant case which also makes doubtful presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence and as per statement of Dr. M.L. Tandon the deceased had sustained fire wounds on the back side of shoulder and there were various gun shots present and as per the doctor's version such kind of wound could only be caused by separate gun shots and as per the tattooing which were reflected on the wound, the same also lead to conclusion that fire was made from close range and in such situation pellet could not spread and there was every likelihood that the same had been sustained by multiple fire. The doctor categorically stated that such kind of fire arm injuries could not be sustained while making one gun shot but in fact various gun shot had been made to the deceased whereas the witnesses had made statement that Devendra Kumar Singh @ Om Prakash Singh had made only one gun shot to the deceased. This also falsify the prosecution version and the same could not be corroborated with the medical evidence in this regard. 11. The learned Trial Court has also considered the relevant aspect regarding the time of occurrence and and also dealt that there were certain discrepancies apparent on the face of record which could also lead to the conclusion that time of occurrence of the incident could be different. The learned Trial Court had also dealt relevant issue regarding close ties and relation between witnesses which also lead to biased statement and falsify the prosecution story. 12. The learned Trial Court has noted that Kaptan Singh PW-1 himself has gone under medical examination at 10: 15 PM on 26.03.1981 and Arjun Singh had been examined by doctor on 27.03.1981 at 12: 15 PM. The learned Trial Court had also raised grave doubt regarding the timing of medical examination conducted on both Kaptan Singh and Arjun Singh and it had been deliberately tried to justify that the incident had occurred somewhere around in the night just to justify the incident and it also created doubt while the medical examination had not taken place on Arjun Singh on the same date. These all have been made deliberately just to justify their appearance at the time of occurrence. 13. These all have been made deliberately just to justify their appearance at the time of occurrence. 13. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court does not appear to be erroneous or wrong judgment or the view taken by him cannot be said to be impossible, illegal or perverse rather the view taken by the trial court is quite possible. 14. A possible view denotes an opinion which can exist or be formed irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such an opinion. A view taken by a court lower in the hierarchical structure may be termed as erroneous or wrong by a superior court upon a mere disagreement. But such a conclusion of the higher court would not take the view rendered by the subordinate court outside the arena of a possible view. The correctness or otherwise of any conclusion reached by a court has to be tested on the basis of what the superior judicial authority perceives to be the correct conclusion. A possible view, on the other hand, denotes a conclusion which can reasonably be arrived at regardless of the fact where it is agreed upon or not by the higher court. The fundamental distinction between the two situations has to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court. 15. The considerations on the basis on which the trial court had founded its order of acquittal in the present case clearly reflects a possible view. There may however be disagreement on the correctness of the same. But that is not the test. So long as the view taken is not impossible to be arrived at and reasons therefore, relatable to the evidence and materials on record, are disclosed any further scrutiny in exercise of the power under Section 378 Cr. P.C. is not called for. 16. The government appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed, accordingly.