JUDGMENT Anant Kumar, J.: - This government appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the State of U.P. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.2.1985 passed by Sri K. Narayan, Sessions Judge, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1982, under Sections 148, 302/149, 326/149 & 201/149 I.P.C. whereby the accused persons in the said case have been acquitted. 2. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that this appeal has been filed against the accused-respondents Hemant Singh, Ranjit Singh, Mukti Nath Singh, Satya Prakash Singh and Saroj Singh but from the judgment of the trial court, it is evident that during the trial itself the accused Ranjit Singh had died and case against him had abated. So it appears that this appeal against the accused Ranjit Singh has wrongly been filed. 3. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged by one Somai Ram son of Juggaram, resident of Etwahara, Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti on 9.4.1982 at 20.10 hours. It was mentioned in the F.I.R. that the complainant had purchased a land about one year back in the village from one Nand Lal Singh son of Kedar Nath Singh through a sale deed and in the said land, crop of gram and wheat was sown. On the day of occurrence at about 5.00 P.M., Hemant Singh son of Mukti Nath Singh of the village was cutting the crop. On getting this information, the informant, his brother Ganga Prasad and wife of the informant Chandra Kala reached the field and restrained Hemant Singh from cutting the crop, thereupon, Hemant Singh having Ballam in his hand and hurling abuses threatened them to go away and said that this is my field and I will cut the crop and thereupon, Hemant Singh gave a Ballam blow upon Ganga Prasad. In the meantime, co-villagers Saroj Singh son of Kamla Singh having Ballam, Mukti Nath son of Subedar Singh having Bhujali, Ranjit Singh son of Mukti Nath having sword and Satya Prakash Singh son of Ram Ashare having Farsa emerged from the sugar cane field of Sheshraj Singh and cordoned them. Mukti Nath and Satya Prakash caught hold the informant. In the meantime, co-villagers Saroj Singh son of Kamla Singh having Ballam, Mukti Nath son of Subedar Singh having Bhujali, Ranjit Singh son of Mukti Nath having sword and Satya Prakash Singh son of Ram Ashare having Farsa emerged from the sugar cane field of Sheshraj Singh and cordoned them. Mukti Nath and Satya Prakash caught hold the informant. When Chandrakala rushed to save the brother of the informant, Satya Prakash leaving the informant pounced upon the wife of the informant and gave a blow of Farsa in her left hand, due to which she sustained injury in her left hand. The accused persons gave blows upon Ganga Prasad from their respective Ballam, Farsa, Bhujali and sword and severed his head from the body through sword and took away the head. It was further mentioned in the F.I.R. that anyhow the informant got free from the hands of the Mukti Nath and saved himself. This incident was witnessed by witness Sachchidanand son of Rampher Harijan, Rampher son of Jhingur Harijan and other persons. The wife of the informant was taken to Gaur Government Hospital in an injured condition by co-villager Ram Samujh where her primary treatment was done. Since her condition was serious, she was referred to the District Hospital, Basti. It was further mentioned that the informant along with his wife and Ram Samujh came to the police station for giving information. It was requested that his report be lodged and action be taken. 4. The injured Chandra Kala was medically examined at P.H.C. Gaur by Dr. Ashok Kumar and following injury was found on her person: - Incised wound measuring 12.5 P.M. cm x 2 cm x 3 cm on the middle of left forearm. There was fracture of both bones and fresh bleeding was present. 5. The F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Paikoliya, District Basti at Crime No. 43 of 1982, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 302, 201 I.P.C. After lodging of the F.I.R., the police came on the spot and from the spot bloodstained and plain soil was collected and some cut gram crop was recovered. Dead body of the deceased Ganga Prasad was sent for post-mortem. Dead body of the deceased Ganga Prasad was sent for post-mortem. The post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased Ganga Prasad was conducted and following ante-mortem injuries were found on his person: - i. Incised wound 13 cm x 12 cm through & through at neck with head missing at level of 4th cervical vertebra. Circumference of wound 38 cm underneath 4th cervical vertebra, Trachea, oesophagus, all large vessels & muscles cut through and through. ii. Punctured wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 3 cm just 1.5 cm below injury no. 1. iii. Punctured wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, 2 cm below injury no. 2. iv. Punctured wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep on left side of chest just lateral to sternum on 4th intercostal space. v. Punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity deep left side of chest, 2 cm above and outer to injury no. 4. vi. Punctured wound 4 cm x 2 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of chest 6 cm below and medial to right nipple in 6th intercostal space. vii. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on outer side of left clavicle. viii. Incised wound 7 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on lower part of front of left shoulder. ix. Incised wound 9 cm x 3 cm x bone cut on front of top of left shoulder joint. x. Abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm back of left thumb. xi. Punctured wound 4 cm x 1 cm x abdominal cavity deep on left side of back of chest 10 cm from mid line 12 cm from iliac spine. xii. Linear Abrasion 15 cm x 0.2 cm on back of chest in upper lumber region horizontally. xiii. Linear Abrasion 14 cm x 0.2 cm, 3 cm below injury no. 12 horizontally. xiv. Punctured wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep of middle of back of right buttock. xv. Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone cut on the back side of left knee joint. The head of femur in this injury was also cut. xvi. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the lower portion of left thumb. 6. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the court. xv. Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x bone cut on the back side of left knee joint. The head of femur in this injury was also cut. xvi. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the lower portion of left thumb. 6. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted in the court. The case being triable by Sessions was committed to the court of Sessions and charges were framed against the accused persons under Sections 148, 302/149, 326/149 and 201/149 I.P.C. 7. Trial proceeded in the court of Sessions. On behalf of prosecution three witnesses of fact PW-1 Somai Ram, PW-2 Smt. Chandra Kala and PW-3 Sachchidanand were examined whereas PW-4 Ashok Kumar, Medical Officer, P.H.C. Gaur, Basti who had medically examined Smt. Chandra Kala, PW-5 D.K. Singh, S.O. Investigating Officer, PW-6 Dr. Pramod Kumar who had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ganga Prasad, were examined as formal witnesses. 8. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Basti has acquitted the accused persons from all the charges, hence this appeal has been filed. 9. We have heard Sri R.Y. Pandey, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State, Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Rajiv Gupta and Sri Rajarshi Gupta learned counsel for the accused respondent nos. 4 and 5 and Sri Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the accused-respondent nos. 1 and 3 and perused the record. 10. On behalf of the State appellant, it is vehemently argued by learned A.G.A. that the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse to the evidence on record and particularly based upon surmises and conjectures. The prosecution had succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused persons to the hilt. There were three eye witnesses. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are the eye witnesses and they were present at the time of occurrence and out of them, PW-2 Smt. Chandra Kala had sustained grievous incised wound on her left hand caused by one of the accused. The younger brother of the informant Ganga Prasad was brutally murdered and his head was taken away by the accused persons. The younger brother of the informant Ganga Prasad was brutally murdered and his head was taken away by the accused persons. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged on the same day at 8.10 P.M. by PW-1 at police station without any unnecessary delay which was based upon real culpable act committed by all the accused persons in broad day light and in presence of all three eye witnesses. There was neither any concealment of fact nor any addition or improvement of any fact as found during investigation and even during trial. Motive was also properly proved by prosecution in very specific terms as there was a dispute of land between the parties and this was the sole cause of the occurrence. The learned trial court also recorded a finding and found the very presence of PW-2 at the scene of occurrence but due to some typographical mistake made by the doctor in his medical examination report of PW-2 showing lacerated wound instead of incised wound, will not impeach and create any doubt towards the trustworthiness of PW-2. 11. It is further argued by learned A.G.A. that the learned trial court has not recorded any cogent finding or given any reason for disbelieving the testimony of all the three eye witnesses and even the injured witness has been disbelieved who had sustained grievous injury at the time of occurrence. The learned trial court has wrongly disbelieved the presence of PW-3 without making any proper assessment and appraisal of evidence on record since PW-3 was working in the field along with other persons situated near the field of informant. The deceased had sustained about 16 injuries upon his body, out of which six were incised wounds and seven were punctured wounds, which can only be caused by Ballam, Sword, Farsa and Bhujali and remaining three injuries were abrasions, as such, from the very inception all the accused persons were armed with Farsa, Ballam, Bhujali and Sword and made assault from their respective weapons, which is fully corroborated from the ante-mortem injuries recorded by the doctor in the post-mortem examination report of the deceased. The learned trial court should have convicted all the accused persons and the judgment and order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. 12. The learned trial court should have convicted all the accused persons and the judgment and order of the trial court deserves to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents have argued that the judgment and order of the trial court is fully justified and well reasoned. The learned Sessions Judge has elaborately analyzed and discussed the entire evidence on record and by recording cogent reason has rightly disbelieved the presence of the witnesses on the spot. The learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the presence of the informant Somai Ram PW-1 who lodged the F.I.R. as he had not sustained any injury. The learned trial court has discussed the evidence on record, finding that there was no reason for killing the brother of the informant Ganga Prasad as in fact, Somai Ram was the main target due to enmity with Mukti Nath Singh. The reason recorded by the trial court is cogent and is based upon the material facts and surrounding circumstances. It is further argued that a finding of acquittal can only be reversed by the Appellate Court in exceptional circumstance where there exists compelling reasons to reverse the said finding of acquittal and this principle of law has been enumerated by Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments laying down the law to the extent that if one view is possible on the basis of which finding of acquittal has been recorded by the trial court, then the appellate court for the reason that second view is more probable on good reason, cannot substitute its own view by reversing the finding of acquittal during the course of appeal. 13. In this case, the informant PW-1 Somai Ram has lodged the F.I.R. and has mentioned that he had purchased some land from one Nand Lal Singh son of Kedar Nath Singh in which the crop of gram and wheat was there and he along with his wife and younger brother reached his field and on getting information that Hemant Singh son of Mukti Nath Singh is cutting the crop of gram and when they restrained Hemant Singh from cutting the crop, he gave abuses and made a blow from Ballam to Ganga Prasad. In the meantime, other accused persons having different arms in their hands, emerged from the field of Sheshraj Singh and cordoned them. In the meantime, other accused persons having different arms in their hands, emerged from the field of Sheshraj Singh and cordoned them. Mukti Nath Singh and Satya Prakash caught hold the informant and when the wife of the informant came running, Satya Prakash left the informant and pounced upon her and gave a Farsa blow upon her left hand, due to which she sustained injury. The other accused persons inflicted injuries to Ganga Prasad from their respective weapons i.e. Ballam, Farsa, Bhujali and Sword and cut the head from the neck and ran away with the same. This incident is said to have been seen by witnesses Sachchidanand and Rampher. In this case, the informant Somai Ram has been examined as PW-1 wherein he had stated that the information that Hemant Singh is cutting the crop of gram was given to him by his younger son whereupon, he along with his wife and younger brother had reached on the spot. When they reached on the spot, they had seen that Hemant Singh was cutting the crop. When he was restrained from doing so, he gave abuses and stated that the field belongs to him and, as such, he will cut the crop. Thereupon, he was restrained by his brother Ganga Prasad then he gave a Ballam blow in his chest. When the informant raised alarm, the other accused persons came from the nearby sugar cane field of Sheshraj Singh. Satya Prakash and Mukti Nath Singh caught hold the informant and rest of the accused persons started giving blows upon Ganga Prasad. When the wife of the informant Chandra Kala came to rescue of the informant, the accused Satya Prakash gave a Farsa blow upon her left hand. On the alarm, witness Rampher and Sachchidanand came on the spot. The mode and manner of the occurrence as told by PW-1 in his statement and the F.I.R. are little different. In the F.I.R. it is not mentioned that the informant received information from his younger son. In the F.I.R. it is also not mentioned that Hemant Singh had given blow of Ballam in the chest of Ganga Prasad. As per the version of the F.I.R., all the three persons had restrained Hemant Singh from cutting the crop of gram whereas in his statement he has stated that his brother had restrained Hemant Singh. In the F.I.R. it is also not mentioned that Hemant Singh had given blow of Ballam in the chest of Ganga Prasad. As per the version of the F.I.R., all the three persons had restrained Hemant Singh from cutting the crop of gram whereas in his statement he has stated that his brother had restrained Hemant Singh. It is also not mentioned in the F.I.R. as to who had taken away the head of the deceased from the spot whereas in his statement he has stated that Hemant Singh had taken away the head of the deceased. This fact is not mentioned in the F.I.R. All these aspects have been very deeply considered by the learned trial court which has doubted the presence of this witness on the spot. The trial court has taken into account that PW-1 Somai Ram has not stated even a word about getting himself free from the clutches of Satya Prakash and Mukti Nath Singh. It has been narrated for the first time by PW-2 Chandra Kala that Somai Ram was caught hold by Satya Prakash and Mukti Nath Singh. She rushed for the safety of informant then the informant got himself free. According to Somai Ram, first, there was exchange of talk between Ganga Prasad and Hemant Singh and it was after sometime that a blow of Ballam was given in the chest of Ganga Prasad. However, in the cross examination of Chandra Kala, it was shown that when they reached there, her husband was caught hold by Satya Prakash and Mukti Nath Singh and she was injured in hand by Farsa of Satya Prakash. Thus, first incident on their reaching the spot would be that Somai Ram was caught hold by two accused persons. This would not be in agreement with her earlier statement as well as in the statements of other witnesses that first, there was a blow in the chest of Ganga Prasad and then the other accused came forward from the field of Sheshraj Singh. PW-1 had also not sustained any injury during the course of incident. He had not accompanied his wife for conducting the medical examination. As per the medical examination report of Smt. Chandra Kala Ext. Ka-2, she was brought by Ram Samujh and no cogent reason for the same has been explained by prosecution. PW-1 had also not sustained any injury during the course of incident. He had not accompanied his wife for conducting the medical examination. As per the medical examination report of Smt. Chandra Kala Ext. Ka-2, she was brought by Ram Samujh and no cogent reason for the same has been explained by prosecution. All these aspects have correctly and very deeply been discussed by the trial court. 14. The presence of PW-3 on the spot has also been very deeply considered by the trial court and it has been held that PW-3 Sachchidanand is said to have been working in the field of Naulu Singh on the west of field of Somai Ram where the occurrence took place. I have already stated above that Sachchidanand is a cousin of Somai Ram. What is still more remarkable is the fact that he has stated to have been cutting the gram crop in the field of Naulu Singh while according to site plan Ext. Ka-8, the Investigating Officer had found wheat crop standing on that field. For him the harvesting of crop is so important that he could not afford to keep himself with the corpse of his cousin even for two hours while the fact remains that there was no gram crop to harvest. The trial court has rightly concluded that this simply shows that he has been a got up witness. The trial court has further held that it has been shown in his evidence that there were some four or five labours working in the field with him under the supervision of one Manorath Halwaha. He could not recollect the name of that labour. But what was the reason for forgetting them on the next day of the occurrence when he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. The fact comes out that they were never intended to be examined as possibly neither Sachchidanand nor Somai Ram was there and it was for the joint interest of them together with Smt. Chandra Kala that they have decided to bear evidence and since they could not think of anybody else to be implicated they have named and implicated Mukti Nath Singh, his two sons and their two other rivals. The evidence of Sachchidanand is also not inspiring confidence. The evidence of Sachchidanand is also not inspiring confidence. When he had stated in his statement that even after the occurrence he along with other labours continued in cutting the crop of the field and even after the occurrence for about half hour they continued like this and then they took the crop to the door of Mukti Nath Singh and from there, they went to home. This part of the evidence of Sachchidanand is totally unnatural that after the murder of the deceased in the nearby field, labours were continued to work for about half hour and after taking the crop they went away. All these aspects have rightly been considered by the trial court. 15. So far as the motive of the occurrence is concerned, this aspect has also been deeply considered by the trial court. It has been held in its judgment that statement of PW-1 Somai Ram in the matter of motive has been to the effect that he had purchased the land of one Nand Lal Singh of his village about one year before the occurrence itself. He had applied for mutation on the basis of the said document and in that case a sister of Nand Lal Singh had filed objections. The sister of Nand Lal Singh is said to be alive and is living in district Gonda with her husband. Mukti Nath Singh is agnate about four degree remote from Nand Lal. Whatever be the relation between Nand Lal and Mukti Nath, the same should be generally speaking between the sister and Mukti Nath. In case the sister is coming out for fight in her interest she will do it better with the help of her husband. In case, she has to engage a man from the village, naturally he would not be a person who might have common interest with Nand Lal Singh. Apart from this hypothesis, the fact remains that the accused Mukti Nath Singh is said to have even signed several papers in the mutation case. But neither any such evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer nor any attempt has been made even after his cross-examination to obtain a copy etc. of the same in order to prove the word of the mouth of Somai Ram. This contention about Pairvi by Mukti Nath was also not mentioned in the F.I.R. nor it was ever stated to the Investigating Officer. of the same in order to prove the word of the mouth of Somai Ram. This contention about Pairvi by Mukti Nath was also not mentioned in the F.I.R. nor it was ever stated to the Investigating Officer. It appears to be in the nature of development at the last stage and right in the witness box itself. In the cross examination, Somai Ram has stated that Hemant Singh on a prior occasion had objected to the ploughing of this field by him. This incident is said to be of about a week before the occurrence itself. This is a white lie. As there is no occasion for ploughing a field where a crop is standing ready for harvesting. 16. Regarding the motive, the trial court has further held that I could understand that Mukti Nath was doing pairvi on behalf of the sister of Nand Lal Singh but in that event, what side of the sword will be edged? Somai Ram being opposed by Mukti Nath in a law court, would feel offended with whatever Mukti Nath is doing. On the other hand, unless some sort of agreement between the sister and Mukti Nath could be shown, the act would be for the benefit of the sister of Nand Lal. He would have no occasion to go and harvest the crop of the field. This way the learned trial court has very deeply considered the aspect of the motive and has considered every aspects of the same. 17. So far as the witness PW-2 Smt. Chandra Kala is concerned, it is stated that she is injured witness and her statement should have been believed. In this regard, it has come in the evidence that her medical examination was conducted at P.H.C. Gaur and from there, she was referred to District Hospital, Basti for X-ray and she was admitted in the hospital for a long time but no such documentary evidence is available on record to show exact nature and extent of injury. Since the presence of witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 has been doubted by the trial court, we think that on the basis of single testimony of PW-2, the guilt of the accused persons can not be held and in this regard, view taken by learned trial court appears to be very cogent and reasoned. 18. Since the presence of witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 has been doubted by the trial court, we think that on the basis of single testimony of PW-2, the guilt of the accused persons can not be held and in this regard, view taken by learned trial court appears to be very cogent and reasoned. 18. So far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, on behalf of the accused-respondents, reliance has been placed on several decisions of the Apex Court as in the case of S. Anil Kumar Alias Anil Kumar Ganna Vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 219 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 14 as follows: "14. This Court in Rohtas Vs. State of Haryana held that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, can the High Court interfere with the order of acquittal. In the said case following observation was made by this Court: - "27. The High Court interfered with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. The law of interfering with the judgment of acquittal is well settled. It is to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of the acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 19. In another case State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan and others, AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3033, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this Court has laid down sufficient guidelines for interference by superior court against the order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances to interfere and judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 20. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. 20. Similar view has also been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State, Sriramapuram PS and another, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 173 and Pudhu Raja and another Vs. State, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 608. 21. Looking to the entire material on record and considering the legal aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the judgment and order of the trial court is well thought and well considered. The trial court has rightly taken every aspects of the matter into consideration and after considering the entire materials on record, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused persons. Learned A.G.A. has failed to show any such inconsistency, illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial court which may warrant reappraisal and reversal of the judgment of acquittal. 22. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, this appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the judgment and order of the learned trial court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.