JUDGMENT Kalimullah Khan, J.: - This government appeal no. 2514 of 1983 under Section 378 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the State of U.P. against the accused, Shyam Bihari, Amrit Lal and Moti Lal, all R/O Village & P.S.-Mau, District-Banda, whereby learned trial court has acquitted all the aforesaid accused persons by judgment and order dated 15.7.1983 under Section 302 IPC in S.T. No. 436 of 1982: State Vs. Shyam Bihari & two others. 2. Since accused-respondent no. 1, namely Shyam Bihari has died as per report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda dated 23.10.2003 and office reports dated 24.11.2003, 1.12.2003, appeal against him stands abated. 3. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.7.1983 has been challenged on the ground that it is against the law and facts of the case. 4. The incident is said to have taken place on 4.8.1982 at about 13 hours, whereas first information report was lodged on the same day i.e. 4.8.1982 at 2.15 P.M. 5. The prosecution case as it appears, is that the accused, Shyam Bihari (a Darji), Amrit Lal (a Lohar) and Moti Lal (a Mali), are the residents of Village-Mau and are friends inter-se. They have long standing enmity with the complainant, Jag Mohan and his nephew deceased, Dinesh alias Poladhar, aged about 20-22 years and their family members. The incident took place out of the aforesaid enmity. Dinesh alias Poladhar, hereinafter called 'deceased' has his education up to Intermediate. The incident took place on Raksha Bandhan day when complainant Jagmohan was grazing his she-buffalo towards south of field of Somdutta by the side of the road. Smt. Raj Kali, P.W. 2, mother of the deceased was scrapping grass along with two other lady, Km. Rajmani and Shail Kumari in the field of Ram Surat towards east of the field of Somdutta. At that time, deceased was coming from his house to call for his mother. Accused, Shyam Bihari and Amrit Lal armed with Pharsa and Moti Lal with lathi reached there. They exhorted 'MARO SALE KO JANN SE BACHKAR JANE NA PAVE' and they belaboured the deceased with their weapons and killed him at spot. On hearing alarm being raised, Jagmohan P.W.1, Smt. Raj Kali, P.W.2, Kumari Rajmani and Shail Kumari rushed towards scene of incident and in the meantime all three accused persons fled away towards north-west. 6. They exhorted 'MARO SALE KO JANN SE BACHKAR JANE NA PAVE' and they belaboured the deceased with their weapons and killed him at spot. On hearing alarm being raised, Jagmohan P.W.1, Smt. Raj Kali, P.W.2, Kumari Rajmani and Shail Kumari rushed towards scene of incident and in the meantime all three accused persons fled away towards north-west. 6. Jagmohan, P.W. 1 lodged the report on the same day at about 2.15 P.M. at the Police Station-Mau, District-Banda. The case was registered, investigation started, inquest was prepared and after observing necessary formalities, dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary for post mortem examination. The Investigating Officer recovered the plain and blood stained earth, prepared recovery memo. He further recovered under-shirt (Baniyan) of the deceased and also a piece of bone and hair from the spot. He sealed them in separate bundles. Recovery memos were prepared. Dr. M.P. Joshi, Medical Officer, Combined Hospital, Karvi conducted post-mortem examination on 5.8.1982 at 12.40 hours on the body of the deceased, Poladhar, prepared post-mortem report and proved it as Ex. Ka-2. Following ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased aged about 20 years: 1. Incised wound size 16 cm. x 1.2 cm. x brain cavity deep on head in mid-line in front of parietal region, 4 cm. above bridge of nose horizontally placed, underlying bone, frontal and parietal cut. 2. Incised wound 15 cms. x 1 cm. x brain cavity deep on left side of head in front to temporal region just above left ear, transversally placed, underlying bone cut. 3. Incised wound 16 cm. x 2 cm. x brain cavity deep on left side of face, ear and back of head in occipital region 6 cm. below injury no. 2, transversally placed, underlying bone cut. 4. Incised wound 12 cms. x 1 cm. x bone deep on left side of face and lateral aspect of neck 2 cms. below injury no. 3, underlying bone left mandible cut, transversally placed. 5. Incised wound 17 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on anterior lateral aspect of upper part of left side of neck 1 cm. below injury no. 4 transversally placed, underlying all muscles vessels and bone cut. 6. Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on anterio lateral aspect of left shoulder joint transversally placed. 7. Incised wound 5 cm. x 0.2 cm. x bone deep on anterior lateral aspect of upper part of left side of neck 1 cm. below injury no. 4 transversally placed, underlying all muscles vessels and bone cut. 6. Incised wound 6 cm. x 1 cm. x bone deep on anterio lateral aspect of left shoulder joint transversally placed. 7. Incised wound 5 cm. x 0.2 cm. x skin deep on anterio lateral aspect of upper 1/3rd of left arm, 7 cms. below injury no. 6 transversally placed. 8. Contusion 8 cms. x 2 cms. on front of lower 1/3rd of right side of thigh 5 cms. above knee joint obliquely placed. 7. The doctor opined that cause of death was due to coma as a result of ante mortem injuries. 8. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex. Ka-15). 9. The accused persons were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. They denied the charges and claimed their trial. 10. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Jagmohan, P.W. 1 and Smt. Rajkali, P.W. 2 on charges. Both these witnesses had supported the prosecution case as embedded in the FIR. Dr. M.P. Joshi, Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem report and proved the post-mortem examination report is P.W. 3, S.O. P.W. 4, is the Investigating Officer. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused persons denied the prosecution evidence and attributed their false implication on account of their ill-will. They were called upon to enter into their defence, but they did not adduce any evidence in support of their case. 11. The learned trial court acquitted all three accused persons under Section 302 IPC on the grounds; that it is not natural and probable for Smt. Raj Kali, P.W. 2 to go to scrap the grass on the day of Raksha Bandhan, likewise Jagmohan, P.W. 1 had no business to go to graze cattle near the scene of incident and this story of theirs is imaginary. It is stated that the field in which grass is said to be scrapped was found ploughed as per evidence of Investigating Officer; that site of scrapped grass was not shown to the I.O.; that the witnesses of facts are chance witnesses; that mode and manner of incident could not be proved for the reason that there is material contradiction in between the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2; that no independent witness has been examined; that only interested and related inimical witnesses have been produced; that the deceased is said to have reached there wearing Baniyan and Janghiya only although it is said that he had returned from Allahabad and when he found his house locked, he proceeded to call for her mother who was scapping the grass. The learned trial court was also of the view that within all human probability he would not like to have gone to Allahabad in Baniyan and Janghiya. It is said that he was bearing a Tahmad and he had put it on the head during the incident, but it had neither cut mark nor there was blood stain. The learned trial court was of the opinion that the story set up by the prosecution is not convincing and reliable, therefore, in his opinion prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt in view of the fact that Jagmohan, P.W. 1 and Smt. Raj Kali, P.W. 2, both are highly inimical against the accused who had no inter-se connection of friendship. On the aforesaid grounds, the trial court has acquitted the accused persons vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.7.1983. 12. Feeling aggrieved, the State of U.P. has preferred this appeal. 13. We have heard Sri A.N. Mulla, learned A.G.A. for the appellant-State of U.P. and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, appearing for accused-respondents no. 2 and 3. Perused the record. 14. The perusal of record shows that in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court cannot be said to be a not possible view, therefore, this appellate court should refrain itself to up set the aforesaid finding of acquittal even if it is of different view. 15. The deceased was found at spot in Baniyan and Janghiya. Both the witnesses, Jagmohan and Smt. Raj Kali have admitted that deceased had returned from Allahabad. 15. The deceased was found at spot in Baniyan and Janghiya. Both the witnesses, Jagmohan and Smt. Raj Kali have admitted that deceased had returned from Allahabad. It is not the case of prosecution that before proceeding towards scene of incident from his house after his return from Allahabad he had put off his wearing clothes. Even it is assumed that he had gone to Allahabad in Baniyan and Jangiya and the said Tahmad was kept by him on his head at the time of assault there is every possibility that the aforesaid tahmad must have stained with blood. To re-reconcile the situation, the prosecution witnesses appears to have tried their level best by saying that during incident said tahmad had fallen down on the ground, therefore, it was neither cut nor blood stained. Not only this both the aforesaid witnesses of fact have stated that after the murder of the deceased and running away of the assailants from the spot they put tahmad on the deceased to cover his body. No such tahmad has been produced during trial and the prosecution has not got it exhibited. Therefore, the statement of Smt. Raj Kali and informant that deceased was having a tahmad with him does not inspire confidence. 16. Likewise, Smt. Raj Kali, P.W. 2 has conceded the fact that after the incident when soon after she reached near the body of her son she did not touch the dead body and that is why her cloth did not contain blood. It is most unnatural and improbable conduct of a mother whose son has been murdered before her own naked eyes. Such conduct of a mother renders her evidence unreliable under the fact and circumstances of the case. 17. The Investigating Officer has said that the field in which Smt. Raj Kali, P.W. 2 claims to scrap the grass was already ploughed, but still to reconcile the evidence of Smt. Raj Kali, P.W. 2 and Jagmohan, P.W. 1, he went to the extent of saying that he had seen the grass bundle at the spot and the place from where they were scrapped, but non-mention of this fact in his inspection note and site plan prepared by him do not persuade us to believe that Smt. Raj Kali had scrapped some grass and in that connection she was present at the spot during the incident. Apart from it, two other ladies were also there scrapping grass, but they have not been examined by the prosecution for the reason best known to it. It has come in the evidence of these witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that a number of persons of the vicinity had attracted and they witnessed the incident including assault made by the accused on the person of deceased, but none of them had been produced by the prosecution. Non examination of independent witnesses and withholding of material witnesses namely Kumari Rajmani and Shail Kumari is fatal to prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. Indisputably, both the witnesses on facts are highly inimical to the accused persons. A number of litigation, civil and criminal have been contested in between the parties, therefore, strict judicial scrutiny of their evidence was bound to be made which the learned trial court had done. 19. Jagmohan, P.W. 1 is the real uncle of deceased and he was equally inimical to accused but non causing any injury to Jagmohan by accused is a further circumstance as considered by learned trial court to hold that probably he was not there at spot and had not seen the incident happen. This witness has deposed that he did not accompany the dead body of Jagdish from spot to mortuary on the day of incident. His this highly unnatural conduct casts doubt on the veracity of his evidence. Smt. Rajkali, (P.W. 2) deposed that Jagmohan had gone to mortuary along with the dead body on the day of incident but Jagmohan denied the aforesaid fact by saying that he did not go on the day of incident rather he went to the District Hospital next day of the incident. 20. There is also a major contradiction between deposition of Smt. Rajkali, P.W. 2 and Jagmohan, P.W. 1 on the point of mode and manner of assault on the deceased before and after he had fallen down on the ground during assault as discussed in detail in judgment impugned which further creates doubt in the reliability of their evidence. 21. Para 8 of the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Ajorey & others, 1991 Cr. L. J. : 2020 reads as under: - "8- The law is well settled that appeals from acquittal are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. 21. Para 8 of the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Ajorey & others, 1991 Cr. L. J. : 2020 reads as under: - "8- The law is well settled that appeals from acquittal are allowed only in exceptional circumstances. It is an extraordinary remedy. The appeal by Government should be made judiciously and only in cases where the judgment is so clearly wrong that its maintenance would amount to a serious miscarriage of justice or when a principle is involved or the question is one of great importance or of great public importance. The burden is on the Government to show that the acquittal is wrong and strong and urgent grounds must be made out to justify interference. When there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of deceased, the High Court will not interfere nor will it interfere merely because upon evidence the lower court might have come to the conclusion of guilt, unless it is quite clear that the acquittal is wrong. The High Court will not also interfere merely because it might itself, as an original court, have arrived at a different conclusion. Where an appeal against acquittal turns on the facts it would only succeed if the judgment of acquittal is clearly wrong and involves a miscarriage of justice or when the trial judge has erred in failing to draw the clear, indubitable and irresistible inference from the facts or when the trial courts appreciation of evidence is vitiated by failure to take note of a very important fact or where finding of fact is based on an erroneous rejection of evidence. Thus the High Court will only interfere if it is proved without any doubt not only that the accused is guilty, but that he has been acquitted on unreasonable grounds. " 22. In the circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial court is a possible view in the facts, circumstances and in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution, therefore, the aforesaid impugned judgment and order dated 15.7.1983 needs no interference by this appellate Court. 23. In view of the above, appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.