JUDGMENT Kalimullah Khan, J. 1. Government Appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of U.P. against accused-respondents, Udai Raj S/o. Matabheekh Sharma, Amla, S/o. late Udairaj Sharma, Nanku alias Ram Dhwaj, S/o. Ram Naghaol Sharma, all r/o village Auka, P.S. Baksha, District Jaunpur, against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.1983, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, has acquitted all the respondents, under section 302/34 IPC in S.T. No. 127 of 1982, P.S. Baksha, District Jaunpur. Criminal Revision No. 40 of 1984 has been filed by informant Jai Shankar Sharma against the aforesaid respondents challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.8.1983. The aforesaid criminal appeal and criminal revision have arisen out of the same impugned judgment and order, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. During the pendency of this criminal appeal and criminal revision, accused respondent Udai Raj had died, therefore, the appeal and revision have abated against him, vide order dated 24.3.2014. This judgment pertains only to respondents Amla and Nanku @ Ram Dhwaj. 3. Accused Udai Raj, Amla and Ramdhwaj alias Nanku were tried in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 1982, under section 302/34 I.P.C., for causing murder of Ram Sunder Sharma, by the then learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur. They were acquitted vide his judgment and order dated 4.8.1983. 4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that there was long standing enmity between Udai Raj accused and Ram Sundar Sharma (deceased) on account of litigation in respect of a field. It is said that the deceased had won the case under section 145 Cr.P.C. from the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 21.4.1981. It was in this background that on 23.6.1981, at about 10: 30 a.m., when Ram Sunder Sharma was in the said field in village Auka, accused Udai Raj and Amla armed with spears and Ramadhwaj armed with gandasa appeared there. Accused asked Ram Sundar Sharma not to plough the field but he said that the Court had decreed the case in his favour and as such he was entitled to plough the same. Hot altercations ensued which attracted the witnesses on the spot. In the meantime, Ramdhwaj exhorted the other two accused to kill Ram Sundar Sharma, whereupon all the accused inflicted blows on the deceased with their weapons resulting in his death on the spot. Hot altercations ensued which attracted the witnesses on the spot. In the meantime, Ramdhwaj exhorted the other two accused to kill Ram Sundar Sharma, whereupon all the accused inflicted blows on the deceased with their weapons resulting in his death on the spot. They also tried to attack the complainant Jai Shankar son of Ram Sunder Sharma deceased, but he escaped. 5. After the incident, P.W.-1 Jai Shankar lodged a report at police station Baksha, at a distance of 7 miles at 12: 30 noon in which the above mentioned incident had been described. Consequently, chik was drawn by Head Constable Chintamani Singh and case was registered in the G.D. Investigation was taken up by P.W.-4 S.I. Anwarul Haq, Station Officer of Police Station Baksha. After inquest necessary formalities, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by P.W.-3 Dr. R.K. Singh on 24.6.1981, at 11: 15 a.m. The doctor found two punctured and one incised wounds on the person of the deceased. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. 6. Charge under section 302/34 I.P.C. was framed against accused who denied the charge and claimed their trial and attributed their false implication in this case on account of enmity. 7. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.-1 Jai Shankar Sharma and P.W.-2 Ram Tawakkal as witnesses of fact. The other witnesses examined in the case were more or less of formal character. The two other witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. viz., Naggoo and Ram Samujh were not examined as according to the prosecution they had been won over by the accused persons. 8. On appreciation of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge found motive of this case proved but held that the motive cuts both ways. The learned Sessions Judge further found that it was not possible to convict the accused persons in this case on the basis of the evidence of the two eye-witnesses inasmuch as P.W.-1 Jai Shankar Sharma in his testimony in the Court had not stated that Nankoo alias Ramadhwaj had attacked the victim with his Gandasa. According to the learned Sessions Judge, this omission not only made it impossible to convict accused Ramadhwaj in this case but made it impossible to convict the other accused persons also because the very theory of three persons attacking the deceased became doubtful. According to the learned Sessions Judge, this omission not only made it impossible to convict accused Ramadhwaj in this case but made it impossible to convict the other accused persons also because the very theory of three persons attacking the deceased became doubtful. P.W.-2 Ram Tawakkal was a partisan witness and his evidence had not been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.-1 Jai Shankar Sharma. Learned Sessions Judge further found it difficult to accept the evidence of P.W.-2 as he had not stated before the I.O. under section 161 Cr.P.C. that he was present nearby the place of the occurrence scraping the grass. P.W.-2 Ram Tawakkal was aged about 83-84 years and as such could not be expected to be working in the field at this ripe old age. Apart from it prosecution had not examined other independent eye-witnesses to prove the prosecution case. Likewise it did not produce in the Court either the plain or blood stained soil or the report of the Chemical Examiner or Serologist report. The learned Sessions Judge doubted the place of the occurrence which had been challenged by the accused persons. In the ultimate analysis he found that in view of the discrepancies alleged above it was not possible to convict the accused persons hence they were acquitted vide his judgment and order dated 4.8.1983. 9. Feeling aggrieved, this criminal appeal and criminal revision have been preferred. 10. We have heard Sri Abdul Mazeed, learned A.G.A. and Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 11. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that impugned judgment and order is against law and facts of the case. The participation of all the three accused respondents in the commission of the murder of the deceased Ram Sundar Sharma (hereinafter called the deceased), is proved by the evidence of Jai Shankar Sharma (P.W.-1) and also by Ram Tawakkal (P.W.-2), witnesses of fact, which are fully supported by medical evidence. Learned Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the evidence of these witnesses. Learned Trial Court has erred in disbelieving the evidence of these witnesses. It is the constant case of the prosecution as embedded in the F.I.R. that accused Udai Raj and Amla inflicted spear injury and accused-respondents Ramdhwaj alias Nankoo gave Gandasa blow on the person of the deceased and both the aforesaid witnesses have deposed the same thing in the Court but their evidence was disbelieved simply on the ground that Jai Shankar Sharma (P.W.-1) did not state that Ramdhwaj alias Nankoo had given Gandasa blows on the deceased although he had deposed that Ramdhwaj alias Nankoo was armed with Gandasa and the medical examination report speaks that deceased has received a Gandasa blow. 12. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that in the F.I.R. and in his statement given to I.O., revisionist Jai Shankar Sharma has specifically stated that accused Ramdhwaj alias Nankoo had given Gandasa blow on the deceased and aforesaid statement of the revisionist was supported by Ram Tawakkal (P.W.-2) who had stated to I.O. and has also deposed in the Court that Ramdhwaj alias Nankoo had given Gandasa blow on the person of Ram Sunder while rest two accused Udai Raj and his son Amla had given spear blows and the doctor conducting the postmortem examination has deposed that the injuries caused by the pharsa and spear were found on the person of the deceased. Disbelieving the prosecution evidence by the Trial Court for the simple reason that the informant Jai Shanker Sharma did not depose that Ramdhwaj alias Nankoo gave Gandasa blow to the deceased is bad in law. According to him, the view of the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely incorrect that the statement on oath before the Court is the only substantive piece of the evidence and the previous statement may be used to corroborate or to contradict the testimony of a particular witness. According to him, the previous statement and the F.I.R. are also the substantive piece of the evidence. Learned Trial Court has erred in attaching undue importance to non-examination of the other witnesses named in the F.I.R. He further erred in ignoring the testimonies of Jai Shankar Sharma and Ram Tawakkal on the ground that they are related and interested witnesses. The motive in the case is fully proved. Learned Trial Court has erred in attaching undue importance to non-examination of the other witnesses named in the F.I.R. He further erred in ignoring the testimonies of Jai Shankar Sharma and Ram Tawakkal on the ground that they are related and interested witnesses. The motive in the case is fully proved. Since there was no challenge by the respondent about the place of the incident, therefore, non-production of the chemical and serological report in the Court by the prosecution is not fatal to it. Lastly, he submitted that the findings of acquittal of accused is based upon misconception of law and fact which is manifestly perverse and patently erroneous. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted for the offence they are charged. 13. Learned Counsel for the accused-respondents has argued that on the basis of the evidence on record the view taken by the learned Trial Court acquitting the accused-respondents is a possible view and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal cannot be reversed even if this Appellate Court is of different view. Learned Trial Court has rightly disbelieved the deposition of the informant Jai Shankar Sharma and his witness Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 on the ground that their evidence do not corroborate the evidence of each other. Injury No. 3, the incised wound noticed on the body of the deceased is unexplained. The presence of Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 at spot was doubtful inasmuch as he had not stated to I.O. that he was scrapping the gross near the scene of incident. First informant Jai Shankar Sharma has not deposed the assault of Gandasa on the person of deceased in his deposition in the Court. The F.I.R. appears to be ante-timed. No independent witness has been examined in this case although at the spot their presence is admitted to the informant. Both the witnesses examined on facts are deeply interested in the conviction of accused. They are inimical to them. Ram Tawakkal Sharma had already stood a witness against them in another criminal case under section 145 Cr.P.C. who had deposed in favour of deceased. Both the witnesses examined on facts are deeply interested in the conviction of accused. They are inimical to them. Ram Tawakkal Sharma had already stood a witness against them in another criminal case under section 145 Cr.P.C. who had deposed in favour of deceased. The motive proved on record is the actual reason for false implication of accused persons in this case and lastly, he submitted that there is nothing on record to interfere in the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the Government Appeal as well as Criminal Revision both deserves to be dismissed. 14. In the case of Uttar Pradesh v. Awdcsh, ACR-2008-3-2985 : LAWS (SC) - 2008-9-81 Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2001, decided on September 9th, 2008 the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under 6. BARE reading of section 378 of the Code (appeal in case of acquittal) quoted above, makes it clear that no restrictions have been imposed by the legislature on the powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with appeals against acquittal. When such an appeal is filed, the High Court has full power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence at large, the material on which the order of acquittal is founded and to reach its own conclusions on such evidence. Both questions of fact and of law are open to determination by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal. It cannot, however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. 15. After considering some of the leading decisions on the point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as follows: 9. Secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. 15. After considering some of the leading decisions on the point, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as follows: 9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results(1) an Appellate Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup case afford a correct guide for the Appellate Court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) 'substantial and compelling reasons', (ii) 'good and sufficiently cogent reasons', and (iii) 'strong reasons' are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. 16. In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., 2002 (45) ACC 488 (SC) this Court said: 1. Doubtless the High Court in appeal either against an order of acquittal or conviction as a Court of first appeal has full power to review the evidence to reach its own independent conclusion. However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or merely because one other view is possible, because with the passing of an order of acquittal presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened. The High Court would not be justified to interfere with order of acquittal merely because it feels that sitting as a Trial Court it would have proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the reasons given by the Trial Court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If the High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious infirmity. 17. If the High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious infirmity. 17. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha, (2003) 12 SCC 606 : 2004 (13) AIC 450 (SC) this Court observed: 21. There is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. 18. Again in Kallu v. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 this Court stated: 8. While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an Appellate Court, where the judgment of the Trial Court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the Trial Court merely because a different view is possible. The Appellate Court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further, if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the Trial Court. 19. The Appellate Court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further, if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the Trial Court. 19. In Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, 2007 (54) AIC 172 (SC) : 2007 (58) ACC 402 (SC) the following general principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal were culled out: (1) An Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an Appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an Appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An Appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 20. The motive alleged and proved on record is a double edged weapon. On the one hand it prompts the accused to commit the offence and on the other it is sufficient for prosecution to falsely implicate the accused persons. 20. The motive alleged and proved on record is a double edged weapon. On the one hand it prompts the accused to commit the offence and on the other it is sufficient for prosecution to falsely implicate the accused persons. In this case both the parties admit that there was a bad blood in between them. A number of documentary evidence as discussed in the Trial Court's judgment was filed by the accused showing that there was enmity in between the parties and the prosecution has not challenged the genuineness of those documents. Even at the appellate stage learned A.G.A. does not challenge those documentary evidence showing the enmity in between the parties. 21. Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 has deposed that on 23.6.1981 at 10: 30 a.m. his father (deceased) was ploughing his land in plot No. 1021. Accused Udai Raj, his son Amla armed with spear and Ramdhwaj @ Nanhkoo armed with Gandasa reached there and asked his father Ram Sunder Sharma (deceased) to desist from ploughing the said field. Deceased told them that he had won the case under section 145 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, he would plough as he used to plough even in the past. This led to hot exchange of words. Ram Tawakkal Sharma was there at a distance of 50 paces from the field wherein deceased was ploughing. Ramdhwaj made exhortation whereupon Amla and Udai Raj struck with spear on him. The incident was witnessed by Ram Tawakkal Sharma, Ram Samujh Yadav, Naggoo Yadav and others. Deceased fell on the ground after covering a distance of 30 to 31 paces towards west from the place where he received fatal blows. He died at once. According to him it had started raining, therefore, this witness and other persons present on the scene of incident picked up the deceased Ram Sunder Sharma and placed him on the cot lying in the nearby Marha of the deceased. Informant dictated the report to the scribe, his brother Jai Kishor Sharma and lodged it to the police station. 22. According to him it had started raining, therefore, this witness and other persons present on the scene of incident picked up the deceased Ram Sunder Sharma and placed him on the cot lying in the nearby Marha of the deceased. Informant dictated the report to the scribe, his brother Jai Kishor Sharma and lodged it to the police station. 22. Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 aged about 83 to 84 years on the date of incident r/o Auka, P.S. Mahrajganj, District Jaunpur deposed that village of Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 was at a distance of two bighas towards the west of his house and in between there was no Abadi, therefore, he could easily see the plot of Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 from his own house. He deposed that on the date of incident about 10: 00 to 11: 00 a.m., he was scrapping grass towards east of the plot of Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 at a distance of 50 paces on the western bank of a canal. Udai Raj, Amla armed with spear and Nanhkoo armed with Gandasa reached there and asked Ram Sunder Sharma to desist from ploughing. Ram Sunder Sharma insisted to plough the plot and did not accede to their command whereupon Nanhkoo instigated their companions to kill him, therefore, Udai Raj and Amla inflicted spear injuries and Ramdhwaj @ Nanhkoo caused Gandasa injury on the person of Ram Sunder Sharma. After sustaining injuries he ran upto 20 to 35 paces but fell down and died there at spot. The witness claims to have seen the incident. 23. Both the aforesaid witnesses have claimed their presence at spot. According to them witnesses Ram Samujh, Naggoo and others had also witnessed the incident. 24. During the course of investigation, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Following ante-mortem injuries were found at his person (i) Punctured wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 6 c.m. penetrating skin, muscle of the neck on the right side of the neck (near root of neck) in supra clavicular area. The wound was from above downwards; wounds is clear cut edges, parallel and slightly curved to each other. The main blood vessel, carotid artery and jugular veins of the neck right side cut and penetrating. The wound was from above downwards; wounds is clear cut edges, parallel and slightly curved to each other. The main blood vessel, carotid artery and jugular veins of the neck right side cut and penetrating. (ii) Punctured wound 1 c.m. x 5 c.m. x skin and muscle of the right side of chest 5 c.m. below the right nipple. (iii) Incised wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x skin from above downwards on the outer aspect of right forearm 8 c.m. below the elbow joint. It is tailing of downwards towards wrist joint. 25. Undisputedly, the aforesaid independent witnesses Naggoo, Ram Samujh and others have not been examined by the prosecution during trial. There appears substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the accused-respondents that Ram Tawakkal Sharma had admittedly stood a witness for deceased against the respondents in a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. and informant Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 was inimical to them, therefore, the aforesaid independent witnesses Ram Samujh, Naggoo and others should have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case but they have been deliberately withheld by the prosecution for the reason best known to it but their non-examination creates doubt in the mind of the Court regarding veracity of the prosecution story. 26. Apparently, Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 and Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 both the prosecution witnesses are related in the cause of deceased. They are interested in the conviction of the accused. Under these circumstances non-examination of the independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution especially when there is a contradiction in the depositions of both the examined prosecution witnesses on facts on the point of Gandasa injury allegedly caused by Ramdhwaj alias Nanhkoo accused. The interestedness or relativity of prosecution witness is not fatal to prosecution by itself. The only precaution needed to be taken is that their depositions should go under strict judicial scrutiny. The interestedness or relativity of prosecution witness is not fatal to prosecution by itself. The only precaution needed to be taken is that their depositions should go under strict judicial scrutiny. When we make strict judicial scrutiny of their evidence we find that non-assigning the role of inflicting Gandasa injury on the person of deceased by Accused Ramdhwaj @ Nanhkoo is a glaring defect in the prosecution story because the deposition made by the witness Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 during trial is the substantive evidence and there is no force in the contention of learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the first informant that the contents of the F.I.R. and statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. or also the substantive evidence. The arguments advanced by them on that point is against the provisions of law. The statement of a witness recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and not for the purpose of corroboration whereas the contents of F.I.R. can be used either to corroborate or to contradict the testimony of the maker thereof recorded during the course of trial. If Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 has not deposed in the Court that Ramdhwaj @ Nanhkoo had given a Gandasa blow on the person of Ram Sunder Sharma then it would mean that he has not proved the allegation made in the F.I.R. that Ramdhwaj @ Nanhkoo has caused incised wound with Gandasa on the person of deceased irrespective of the fact that the aforesaid fact was mentioned in the F.I.R. Prosecution has not made any endeavor to contradict or corroborate the deposition of Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 from the contents of the F.I.R. lodged by him on this point and if the prosecution has failed in discharging his legal duty as stated above then the benefit of this material omission occurred in the deposition of Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 which goes to the very root of the prosecution case shall go to accused and it has rightly been extended to them by making one of the ground of acquittal of the accused. Due to the omission aforesaid injury No. 3, the incised wound has remained unexplained and what has been left by Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 in his deposition cannot be filled up by the deposition of Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 who had not stated to I.O. that he was scrapping the grass near the scene of incident when the incident took place. It negates his presence of spot. Apart from it on the date of incident admittedly, he was aged about 82 to 83 years and his eye side must have been weak and he did not claim that he was using any spectacle at that point of time. We are compelled to disbelieve the presence of Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 at spot for more than one reason including the reason that in his examination-in-chief he has stated that he was scrapping the grass on the western bank of canal which flows towards east of the scene of incident at few steps but in his cross-examination he stated that he was scrapping grass at the eastern bank of the said canal. Likewise, this witness P.W. 2 does not depose that Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 had witnessed the incident. Even in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. he did not state to I.O. that Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 had witnessed the incident. The testimony of Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 is not corroborated by the evidence of Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 in material particulars as discussed above. 27. Accused-respondents had challenged the place of incident. The submissions made by learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the informant, contrary to it, is against the evidence on record. According to the prosecution the incident took place in the field but accused-respondents has challenged the place of incident and suggested that deceased was done to death in his 'Marha' during the preceding night when he was sleeping on the cot and that is the reason that all the injuries sustained by him is on one side i.e. right side as per the post-mortem examination report. I.O. has found the dead body in the Marha of the deceased lying on a cot. I.O. has found the dead body in the Marha of the deceased lying on a cot. Although, according to the I.O. he had recovered the blood stained earth and plain earth from the field but neither the Chemical Examiner's and serological report's nor the recovered blood stained earth or plain earth were produced before the Court. Both the witnesses Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 and Ram Tawakkal Sharma, P.W. 2 have deposed that when Daroga Ji came the dead body was in the field end there was a light rain, therefore, on the command of Daroga Ji they shifted the dead body from the field to the Marha but the I.O. denies this fact and he does not support the aforesaid stand of these witnesses and said that he found the dead body in the Marha itself. Under the aforesaid contradictory evidence on the point of place of incident the failure of prosecution to send the blood stained earth and plain earth to obtain Chemical Examiner's and Sexologist report and not producing thereof in the Court is fatal to prosecution. 28. Considering the aforesaid contradictory evidence on record; independent witnesses although available were not produced by the prosecution; the examined two witnesses on fact are highly inimical and interested; non-explanation of injury No. 3 of the deceased by his son Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 in absence of his substantive evidence on that point; non-fixing of the place of incident in absence of Chemical Examiner's and Serologist reports. Non-production of recovered blood stained and plain earth during trial and the presence of Jai Shankar Sharma, P.W. 1 and Ram Tawakkal, P.W. 2 at spot doubtful, if the learned Trial Court has concluded that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and recorded a finding of acquittal vide impugned judgment and order dated 4.8.1983 then, it cannot be said that the view taken by him is not a 'possible view'. Therefore, we are of the view that no interference in the findings of acquittal of accused-respondents recorded by the learned Trial Court is called for. 29. Under the aforesaid scenario of facts, circumstances and evidence on record there does not appear any illegality, incorrectness or any impropriety in the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, Government Appeal and the Criminal Revision both lack merit and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the Government Appeal and Criminal Revision.