JUDGMENT Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J.—This Government Appeal No. 2895 of 1982 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by State of U.P.-appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.7.1982 delivered by Sri S.D.N. Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S.T. No. 17 of 1982 (State v. Murlidhar Pathak and three others) under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Bara, District Allahabad whereby he has recorded a finding of acquittal against the respondent. The aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal has been challenged on the ground that it is against the law and facts of the case, hence deserves to be set aside. During the pendency of this Government Appeal accused Murlidhar Pathak, Ramraj Pathak and Dharmraj Pathak have died and, therefore, vide order dated 30.8.2010 Criminal Appeal filed against them stood abated. This judgment now pertains to accused respondent Gurudutt Pathak alone. 2. The prosecution case is that the deceased was collateral of accused, he had been Pradhan of the village for more than two decades. Accused being mighty persons used to harass poor folk and the deceased used to support them due to which accused bore grudges against him. On 6th October, 1981 at about 7:00 a.m. Ram Aasare Pathak, hereinafter called ‘deceased’ was going, as usual, to attend the call of nature towards the bank of river Jamuna situated near his village. When he reached near Basic School, Nagar Par, all the four accused suddenly emerged out from the Bajra field of Ram Sajiwan. Accused Murlidhar Pathak and Gurudutt Pathak were armed with Lathis, Dharmraj Pathak was armed with spear and Ramraj Pathak was armed with pistol. On the exhortation of Murlidhar Pathak, Dharmraj Pathak and Gurudutt Pathak started belaboring the deceased with spear and lathi. The deceased fell down on earth. They crushed his head with lathi. On hue and cry, first informant Satrughan Pathak, his brother Ramsukh Pathak, Lalmani Pathak and Shiv Shankar prosecution witnesses who were already there at a short distance rushed up towards the deceased whereupon accused Ramraj Pathak fired a shot from his pistol towards the deceased and all the assailants ran away alongwith their weapons. The aforesaid witnesses saw the incident. The deceased received his instantaneous death at spot. 3. Satrughan Pathak, son of the deceased, scribed written report Exhibit Ka-1 and send it to the police station Bara through Badri Prasad. The aforesaid witnesses saw the incident. The deceased received his instantaneous death at spot. 3. Satrughan Pathak, son of the deceased, scribed written report Exhibit Ka-1 and send it to the police station Bara through Badri Prasad. Chik report Exhibit Ka-2 was drawn and the case was registered in the General Diary vide G.D. Rapat No. 16 dated 6.10.1981 at about 10:05 a.m. which is proved as Exhibit Ka-3. Special report Exhibit Ka-4 was sent through constable Hanuman Prasad on the same day at 11:35 a.m. 4. S.I., Sukhram Sonkar started investigation of the case. He interrogated Constable Rambadan Shukla and Badri Prasad at police station and proceeded to the spot where he found the dead body of the deceased lying on the Kachcha Road opposite Basic School, Nagar Par. He prepared the inquest of the deceased and after preparing all necessary papers, sealed the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination through constable Kunwar Bahadur and Chowkidar Ram Swarup alongwith the papers prepared at spot. I.O. recovered the blood stained and plain earth from the spot and sealed it in different containers. Apart from it, he recovered blood stained Gamchha (Towel) and Dahband from the spot and put in sealed bundles. I.O. investigated the first informant Satrughan Pathak and other witnesses. During the course of investigation, he arrested accused Murlidhar Pathak on 7th October, 1981 at about 4:00 a.m. after a little chase and during the course of his arrest police personnel inflicted injuries at his person near bridge of river Fagawa. 5. Dr. Nisar Ahmad conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 7.10.1981 at 4:30 p.m. at T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad. He noticed following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased: 1. Depressed fracture of skull with fracture of left parietal bone. In fact all the bones were broken. Brain matter had been liquefied. 2. Multiple abrasion on left pinna. 3. Incised wound over the scalp 5 inch above ear T.U. Directed, 2 inch x 2 inch. Brain matter going out. 4. Lacerated wound above the occipital, 2 inch x 2 inch. Brain matter going out. 5. Incised wound over the left occiput, 2 inch x 1 inch. 5. Incised wound over lateral aspect of palm, 1 inch x 1 inch x muscle deep. 6. Lacerated wound on the posterior aspect of skull, 1 inch x 1 inch x muscle deep. 4. Lacerated wound above the occipital, 2 inch x 2 inch. Brain matter going out. 5. Incised wound over the left occiput, 2 inch x 1 inch. 5. Incised wound over lateral aspect of palm, 1 inch x 1 inch x muscle deep. 6. Lacerated wound on the posterior aspect of skull, 1 inch x 1 inch x muscle deep. 7. Incised wound over the proximal of the occipital. 8. Incised wound over the left parietal bone, 1 inch x 1 inch x brain cavity deep with brain matter going out. 9. Incised wound over the parietal bone, 1 inch x 1 inch. Brain matter was going out. 10. Incised wound over the frontal bone, 1 inch x 1 inch. Brain matter going out. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries. He prepared post-mortem report Exhibit Ka-14 and proved the same in the witness box. In the opinion of the doctor, the death of the deceased was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. After completing the investigation, I.O. submitted chargesheet against Murlidhar Pathak and three absconded accused. 6. Since, the case was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, learned C.J.M. concerned committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. after satisfying himself that the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. had been complied with. Accused (1) Murlidhar Pathak son of Mahadeo Pathak (2) Ramraj Pathak (3) Dharmraj Pathak and (4) Gurudutt Pathak, all sons of Murlidhar Pathak, R/o village Nagarwar, P.S. Bara, District Allahabad were charged for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. for the murder of aforesaid deceased Ram Aasare Pathak. They denied the charge and claimed their trial. 7. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as much as 8 P.Ws. Badri Prasad, P.W. 1 is the person through whom written report Exhibit Ka- 1 was sent to the police station Bara, District Allahabad. He has deposed the same. He is not a witness of the incident. He claims to have reached at the spot after the incident was over. The dead body was lying on the road. Satrughan Prasad Pathak, P.W. 2 is the first informant of this case. He is son of the deceased. He has deposed the same. He is not a witness of the incident. He claims to have reached at the spot after the incident was over. The dead body was lying on the road. Satrughan Prasad Pathak, P.W. 2 is the first informant of this case. He is son of the deceased. He claims to be a witness of an eye account of the incident and he has deposed on facts of the murder of his father at the instance of four accused named above. He also claims to have scribed the report in his own handwriting and signature at the spot and sent it to the police station through Badri Prasad, P.W. 1. Lalmani Pathak, P.W. 3 is another witness of fact who claims to have witnessed the incident of the murder of deceased Ram Aasare Pathak committed by all the four accused. Ram Ganesh, P.W. 4 is another son of deceased who claims to have seen the incident from his own necked eyes and deposed the same. Constable Ram Badan, P.W. 5 was constable Moharrar on 6.10.1981 who has deposed that written report Exhibit Ka-1 was received by him at the police station through Badri Prasad at about 10:05 a.m. and on its basis, he drew chik report Exhibit Ka-2 and made G.D. entry regarding the registration of the case vide G.D. Rapat No. 16 on the said date in his own handwriting and signature and proved it as Exhibit Ka-3. He has further proved the fact that special report Exhibit Ka-4 was sent by him to superior officers on 6.10.1981 itself at 11:35 hours through constable 317 Hanuman Prasad. The entry thereof was made by him at Rapat No. 20 in the G.D. He has further proved that accused Murlidhar Pathak, after being arrested by Sri Sukhram, Officer In-charge of police station Bara was brought at the police station on 7.10.1981 at 7:10 a.m. The G.D. entry of the aforesaid fact was made by him in his own handwriting and signature at Rapat No. 9 on 7.10.1981, the true copy thereof has been proved by him as Exhibit Ka-6. The witness has deposed that accused Murlidhar Pathak was examined by him and he noticed three injuries at his person and made entry thereof in General Diary. The case property in a sealed condition was also received in the police station. 8. The witness has deposed that accused Murlidhar Pathak was examined by him and he noticed three injuries at his person and made entry thereof in General Diary. The case property in a sealed condition was also received in the police station. 8. Constable Kunwar Bahadur No. 1891, P.S. Bara, P.W. 6 has deposed that on 6.10.1981 he was posted at P.S. Bara. Officer Incharge had handed over him the dead body under sealed cover on the said date at 1:35 p.m. He has claimed to handover the aforesaid dead body in a sealed cover alongwith papers in the police-line on the same day. He stayed at the mortuary throughout the night and on the next day, he identified the dead body of Ram Aasare before the doctor. Chowkidar, Ram Swarup was with him throughout. The witness has deposed that the seal of dead body remained intact throughout during the period it was with him. S.I. Sukhram Sonkar, P.W. 7, I.O. of the case has proved the investigation. He has deposed that in between the night of 6/7.10.1981 at about 4 O’ Clock, he arrested accused Murlidhar Pathak from near river of Fahawa bridge. Looking at the police aforesaid accused Murlidhar Pathak tried to run away but after beating him the police succeeded to arrest him and in this process of arrest the aforesaid accused Murlidhar sustained injuries at his person. His injuries were noted in the general diary when he was brought to the police station by him. Copy of aforesaid memo has been proved by him as Exhibit Ka-6 which contains the entry of those injuries. 9. Dr. Nisar Ahmad, M.O., T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, P.W. 8 has entered in the witness box and has proved the post-mortem examination report prepared by him as Exhibit Ka-14 as stated above. No other oral evidence has been led by the prosecution, as it appears. 10. All the four accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence and had attributed their false implication on account of enmity. Accused Murlidhar stated that report was lodged at a highly belated stage. On the date and time of the incident, first informant Satrughan Prasad Pathak was residing at Malviya Nagar, Allahabad and after getting the information of the incident, he reached at the house of his father at night. The prosecution witnesses are relation interse and they belong to one gang. On the date and time of the incident, first informant Satrughan Prasad Pathak was residing at Malviya Nagar, Allahabad and after getting the information of the incident, he reached at the house of his father at night. The prosecution witnesses are relation interse and they belong to one gang. The daughter of deceased Ram Aasare is married with the son of prosecution witness Lalmani P.W. 3. He has further stated that the truth is that Ram Aasare (deceased) had come at his door, hurled abuses, started beating him which attracted the mob. He claims to have sustained injuries at his person caused by deceased Ram Aasare whereupon mob assaulted Ram Aasare (deceased). 11. Accused Ramraj Pathak stated that he did not assault Ram Aasare Pathak. The F.I.R. was lodged at a highly belated stage. The first informant Satrughan Pathak was at Malviya Nagar, Allahabad during the relevant time and he reached there in his village in the night after getting the information of the incident. Inquest report and other papers were forged. He claimed that he is innocent and attributed his false implication on account of old enmity. According to him, the daughter of Ram Aasare namely Manna is married with Ram Sardar who is son of prosecution witness Lalmani (P.W. 3). Dharamraj Pathak accused has denied the prosecution evidence and attributed his false implication on account of enmity and stated that the daughter of Ram Aasare is married with the son of prosecution witness Lalmani. Gurudutt Pathak accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on account of the enmity. He claimed that he was not there at the spot. 12. Accused were called upon to enter into their defence. Accused examined Dr. J.S. Gogia, D.W.1 who has medically examined Murlidhar Pathak in Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad on 7.10.1981. The witness deposed that he was Medical Officer posted in Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad on 7.10.1981. He examined Murlidhar Pathak accused on the said date at 6:45 p.m. He identified accused Murlidhar Pathak in the Doc during his examination. He deposed that following injuries were noticed by him on the person of accused Murlidhar Pathak: 1. Abrasion contusion 3 inch x 2 inch on the dorsal surface of right forearm lower 1/3rd. Redish blue in colour. 2. Abrasion contusion 3-1/2 inch x 2 inch on the dorsal surface of left forearm lower 1/3rd. He deposed that following injuries were noticed by him on the person of accused Murlidhar Pathak: 1. Abrasion contusion 3 inch x 2 inch on the dorsal surface of right forearm lower 1/3rd. Redish blue in colour. 2. Abrasion contusion 3-1/2 inch x 2 inch on the dorsal surface of left forearm lower 1/3rd. Redish blue in colour. 3. Lacerated wound 1 inch x ½ inch skin deep in the front of left leg middle. Margins of wounds irregular. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were kept under observation and x-ray was advised for the same. Injury No. 3 was diagnosed to be caused with blunt object. The duration of the injuries was one day. The witness has proved the said injury report as Exhibit Kha-1 and has stated that the probability of sustaining these injuries by accused Murlidhar Pathak on 6.10.1981 at 6, 7 & 8:00 a.m. is very meager but it may be caused. The injuries were not dangerous to life nor they were grievous, severe or serious in nature. 13. Dr. P.L. Nigam, M.O., T. B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, D.W.2 has deposed that on 21.10.1981, he was Medical Officer at T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad and at about 11:30 a.m., he medically examined accused Murlidhar Pathak and has noticed the injuries at his person and he prepared the injury report in his own handwriting and signature. The witness has proved it as Exhibit Kha-2 and deposed that he noticed following injuries : 1. Healed lacerated wound with scar ¾” x ¼” on medial aspect of right forearm 1-1/2" above sty-laid process of right ulna. The wound is surrounded by a traumatic swelling in an area of 2" x 1-1/2". The bone underneath is tender, uneven, soft calus is felt around the injured part. Adv. x-ray. 2. Healed lacerated wound 1-1/2" x ½” on dorsum of left forearm 1" above crease of wrist joint. Hard blood crust present in the petrifying of the wound. It is surrounded by traumatic swelling in an area of 3" x 2-1/2" extending up to left wrist joint. The radius bone underneath the wound is very tender and crackling sound present on moment of the forearm. Adv. x-ray. 3. Healed lacerated wound ¼” x 1/6" on the left forearm 3" above injury No. 2. 4. It is surrounded by traumatic swelling in an area of 3" x 2-1/2" extending up to left wrist joint. The radius bone underneath the wound is very tender and crackling sound present on moment of the forearm. Adv. x-ray. 3. Healed lacerated wound ¼” x 1/6" on the left forearm 3" above injury No. 2. 4. Healing lacerated wound 1" x ½” x muscle deep on front of middle 1/3rd of left leg 4-1/2" below tubercle of tibia. It is surrounded by inflammatory swelling in an area of 3" x 2". Granulation tissue is filled up to the margins of the wound. The margins of the wound are healed up with scar those present in 1/6" around the periphery of the wound. Nature of injury No. 1, 2, 3 are kept under observation. Adv. X-ray of right forearm, left forearm injury No. 4 is single all injuries are caused by hard blunt object, all the injuries between ten to twenty days approximately. 14. Iqbal, Radiologist, D.W.3 has deposed that he was Radiologist in T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad and he has taken the x-ray of right and left arms of accused Murlidhar Pathak on 21.10.1981 and prepared radiological report and proved the same Exhibits Kha-3 & 4. In cross-examination, he stated that the injuries sustained by accused Murlidhar Pathak might have been caused within seven days from the date of his examination on 21.10.1981 as there was no callous formation. He denied that the aforesaid injuries could have been caused on the date of incident i.e. on 6.10.1981. 15. No other oral or documentary evidence appears to have been adduced by the defence. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence available on record, having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and acquitted all the four accused persons vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.8.1982. 16. Heard learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the accused respondent. Perused the record. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned trial Court has not made appraisal of the evidence available on record in the correct perspective. He has not discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses of facts. Nowhere, it is a case of prosecution that the pistol fired by Ram Raj hit the deceased and caused any injury. Perused the record. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that learned trial Court has not made appraisal of the evidence available on record in the correct perspective. He has not discussed the evidence of prosecution witnesses of facts. Nowhere, it is a case of prosecution that the pistol fired by Ram Raj hit the deceased and caused any injury. None of the witnesses claimed that the aforesaid accused Ram Raj caused firearm injury to the deceased. In cross-examination eye-witness first informant Shatrughan Prasad (P.W.-2) specifically deposed that the said fire did not hit his father. Next eye-witness Lal Mani (P.W.-3) has stated that Ram Raj had fired his pistol but he cannot tell as to whether it hit the deceased or not. The factum of firing by Ram Raj Pathak accused has been deposed to by eye-witness Ram Ganesh Pathak (P.W.-4) but he too had not claimed that it caused any injury to the deceased. Still learned trial Court has recorded a finding on the ground of absence of of firearm injury at the person of deceased that ocular testimony is inconsistent with the medical evidence and disbelieved the eye-witnesses. The appellants had strong motive to commit the murder of deceased. There is no material discrepancy in the evidence of the eye-witnesses of the case but still learned trial Court has disbelieved them on the ground that they failed to explain the grievous injury sustained by Murlidhar Pathak appellant ignoring the evidence on record that Murlidhar Pathak had not sustained any injury in the incident rather he sustained some superficial injury on the next date of the incident caused by police who arrested him from Fagva Nala in the morning at 4:00 a.m. On 7.10.1981. Prosecution has adduced the evidence that Murlidhar Pathak sustained injuries at the instance of the police. In the memo of his arrest, it has been clearly and categorically mentioned by arresting police authority i.e. Investigating Officer of the case that during the course of his arrest necessary force was applied by police as a result of which Murlidhar Pathak sustained some injury at his person. I.O. has entered into the witness box and proved the aforesaid fact but learned trial Court did not give any weight to his evidence and on the basis of the presence of the injury on the body of accused Murlidhar Pathak he disbelieved the prosecution case. I.O. has entered into the witness box and proved the aforesaid fact but learned trial Court did not give any weight to his evidence and on the basis of the presence of the injury on the body of accused Murlidhar Pathak he disbelieved the prosecution case. Likewise he brused aside the testimony of witnesses of fact on the ground that they are highly interested and related inter-se and inimical to accused. The other witness Lal Mani (P.W.-3) who deposed on facts was disbelieved on the ground that he was a chance witness which is not correct. Findings of acquittal is based on conjecture and surmises. The view taken by learned trial Court, acquitting the accused respondents on the ground of presence of injuries on the person of accused Murlidhar Pathak is perverse and therefore, it deserves to be set aside and accused respondents are liable to be held guilty for the charge framed against them. 17. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that view taken by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence on record is equally possible and probable and even if appellate Court is of different view then view taken by learned trial Court shall prevail as per the settled principles of appreciation of evidence. He has further submitted that the injury sustained by Murlidhar Pathak respondent is not superficial in nature rather they are grievous in nature as much as his ulna and radius were found fractured and he has stated in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that deceased Ram Aasare Pathak had come to his door and hurled abuses which attracted the mob and when he started beating him, the mob assaulted Ram Aasare Pathak. According to him prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. They are inimical to accused. Independent witnesses have been withheld and no public independent witness has been produced to prove the prosecution case. In any case, the benefit of doubt has rightly been extended to accused by learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 27.7.1982 which need not be disturbed simply because the appellate Court may be of a different view. 18. Independent witnesses have been withheld and no public independent witness has been produced to prove the prosecution case. In any case, the benefit of doubt has rightly been extended to accused by learned trial Court vide judgment and order dated 27.7.1982 which need not be disturbed simply because the appellate Court may be of a different view. 18. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent relied on following case laws: Murugesan and 16 others v. State Through Inspector of Police, Case No. Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2009 decided on 12.10.2012 reported in 2012 Legal Eagle (SC) 530; Rukia Begum v. State of Karnataka, 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 307; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nandu Vishwakarma and others, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1429; Gopal Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 150 and Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325. 19. Learned trial Court has recorded the finding of acquittal on following grounds : 1. The motive assigned to respondents to commit the murder of Ram Aasare Pathak may be the reason of their false implication in this case; 2. Badri Prasad (P.W.-1) and Lal Mani (P.W.-3) are the chance witnesses whereas Shatrughan Prasad Pathak (P.W.-2), Lal Mani (P.W.-3) and Ram Ganesh Pathak (P.W.-4) the witnesses of fact are related and interested witnesses inasmuch as Shatrughan Prasad Pathak (P.W.-2) and Ram Ganesh Pathak (P.W.-4) are the sons of the deceased whereas Lal Mani (P.W.-3) is relatives which is established on record; 3. No independent public witness has been examined. According to him, even P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 sons of the deceased may also be termed as chance witnesses; 4. Place of occurrence is not proved by the prosecution and there was no occasion for the deceased to reach at the alleged spot if at all he was going to attend the call of nature; 5. Absence of the firearm injury at the person of the deceased belied the presence of prosecution witnesses; 6. F.I.R. is antedated; 7. The prosecution has not explained the injury of accused Murlidhar Pathak; 8. Absence of the firearm injury at the person of the deceased belied the presence of prosecution witnesses; 6. F.I.R. is antedated; 7. The prosecution has not explained the injury of accused Murlidhar Pathak; 8. Although respondents have not adduced any evidence in their defence to prove the fact that deceased sustained injuries at the door of Murlidhar Pathak or the injuries at his person was caused by mob or public, or Murlidhar Pathak received injuries at his own door at the instance of deceased, yet in any case, the possibility of exercise of right of private defence by respondents cannot be said to be improbable. 20. We have gone through the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the accused respondent : In the case of Murugesan and 16 others v. State Through Inspector of Police, 2012 Legal Eagle (SC) 530 it has been held that the High Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal of the accused unless the view taken by trial Court is erroneous or wrong or impossible. The view of the trial Court recording the finding of acquittal of accused should not be reversed simply because the appellate Court is of different view on the basis of the evidence on record. 21. In Rukia Begum v. State of Karnataka, 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 307 it has been held that it is trite that where two views on the evidence are reasonably possible and the trial Court has taken a view favouring acquittal, the High Court in an appeal against acquittal should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it was trying the case, it would have taken an alternative view and convicted the accused. The High Court while hearing appeal against the judgment of acquittal is possessed of all the power of appellate Court and nothing prevents it to appraise evidence and come to a conclusion different than that of the trial Court but while doing so it shall bear in mind that presumption of innocence is further reinforced by acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. The view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration. There must be compelling and weighty reason for the High Court to come to a conclusion different than that of the trial Court. 22. The view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witness must be given proper weight and consideration. There must be compelling and weighty reason for the High Court to come to a conclusion different than that of the trial Court. 22. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nandu Vishwakarma and others, (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1429 it was held that it is settled proposition of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two view could be taken — one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused — the one favouring the accused should be accepted. 23. In Gopal Singh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 150 it was held that the High Court’s power while converting an acquittal into a conviction is no longer a matter of speculation and debate. It is now well settled that if the trial Court’s judgment is well based on the evidence and the conclusion drawn in favour of the accused was possible thereof, the High Court would not be justified in interfering on the premise that a different view could also be taken and though the High Court was entitled to reappraise the evidence there should be substantial and compelling reasons for setting aside an acquittal order and making one of conviction. 24. In the case of Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that : The following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: 1. An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate 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. 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 emphasize 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 principles 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 views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate Court. 25. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, we have made appraisal of evidence on record. The date and time of incident is not disputed by respondents. The factum of death of deceased Ram Aasare has also not been disputed. The injuries at the person of deceased being caused by lathi and ballam are undisputed. Long drawn enmity in between the parties have also not been challenged. What is challenged by the respondents is the place of incident of the murder of deceased. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the road lying in front of Basic Pathshala near tube-well towards south west of the village of the parties whereas respondent’s case is that injuries at the person of the deceased were caused by public at the door of respondent Murlidhar Pathak. If it is proved by the evidence on record that incident took place at the door of accused respondent Murlidhar Pathak then following two things would be deducible from the evidence : 1. If it is proved by the evidence on record that incident took place at the door of accused respondent Murlidhar Pathak then following two things would be deducible from the evidence : 1. That the prosecution witnesses P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 who deposed that Ram Aasare Pathak was assaulted with lathi and ballam on the road in front of Basik Pathshala near tube-well are not reliable witnesses; 2. That Ram Aasare Pathak was not assaulted by the respondents on the aforesaid Road rather he was assaulted by public at the door of respondent Murlidhar Pathak when the deceased was beating him. Contrary to it, if it is not proved that deceased Ram Aasare Pathak was beaten at the door of Murlidhar Pathak respondent then following two conclusions would be emerged out : 1. That the defence case set up by respondent Murlidhar Pathak that incident took place at their door and public assaulted the deceased is false and 2. That the injuries found at the persons of respondent Murlidhar Pathak were not caused during the incident of murder of Ram Aasare Pathak. 26. The perusal of record shows that there is no evidence on record except uncorroborated statement of Murlidhar Pathak respondent recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that Ram Aasare Pathak was beaten by public at his door when he was hurling abuses and causing injury on his person. Rest three respondents (except Murlidhar Pathak) did not say in their statement that Murlidhar Pathak was hurled abuses and assaulted by Ram Aasare Pathak deceased at their door. No blood stained earth or plain earth was recovered from the door of Murlidhar Pathak respondent. The alleged blood stained tahmad and gamchha were also not recovered from his door. It is not their case nor there is any evidence on record that Ram Aasare Pathak either alive or dead in an injured condition was taken or dragged up to the road near Basic Pathshala from the house of respondent Murlidhar Pathak. Even no trail and drops of blood was found anywhere except on the road where, according to the prosecution the deceased was murdered by respondents with lathi and ballam. It has come in the cross-examination of the witnesses that the said place of occurrence is situated towards south-west from the house of the deceased outside the abadi of the village at a distance of about 300-325 gaj. It has come in the cross-examination of the witnesses that the said place of occurrence is situated towards south-west from the house of the deceased outside the abadi of the village at a distance of about 300-325 gaj. All the three witnesses, first informant Shatrughan Prasah Pathak P.W.-2, Ram Mani P.W.-3 and Ram Ganesh Pathak P.W.-4 have deposed that accused persons committed the murder of Ram Aasare Pathak at the road in front of Basic Pathshala near tube-well. Badri Prasad P.W.-1 has deposed that he reached at spot there on the road near Basic Pathshala soon after the incident and found the dead body of Ram Aasare Pathak lying there. I.O. Sukhram Sonkar P.W.-7 has deposed that he reached at spot and found the dead body of Ram Aasare lying towards Prathamic Pathshala on kacchi road where he prepared inquest Exhibit Ka-7 and other papers Exhibit Ka-8, Exhibit- Ka-9 etc. in his own handwriting and signature and sent the dead body in sealed cover for postmortem examination alongwith necessary papers through constable Kunwar Bahadur and Chowkidar Ram Swarup. He has further stated that he had gone to prepare the inquest after F.I.R. was lodged. The copy thereof was sent to mortuary alongwith the dead body. He has further submitted that he prepared the site plan of the aforesaid place of incident in his own handwriting and signature and proved it as Exhibit Ka-11. He recovered plain and blood stained earth from the aforesaid place of incident on the road and prepared the recovery memo Exhibit Ka-12. The aforesaid place of incident is on the road lying towards north of Primary Pathshala. He recovered from spot blood stained Gamchha and tahmad which are material Exhibit Ka-3 and 4. The detailed cross-examination has been made but nothing has been fetched out from the mouth of the witnesses showing that the incident had not taken place on the road near Primary Pathshala. I.O. has not been suggested by respondents that the dead body was not recovered from the road near Primary Pathshala and blood stained and plain earth, tahmad and gamchha were not recovered from that place. Therefore, his evidence on the point of place of recovery of the dead body and recovery of the blood stained and plain earth etc. is unchallenged. Therefore, his evidence on the point of place of recovery of the dead body and recovery of the blood stained and plain earth etc. is unchallenged. Even the witnesses of fact and Badri Prasad P.W.-1 have also been cross-examined at length but noting has occurred in their cross-examination to disbelieve their evidence on the point of place of the incident i.e. the road lying north of the Primary Pathshala. There is not even single iota of evidence suggesting that the incident had not been taken place there on the aforesaid road or any incident took place at the door of respondent Murlidhar Pathak. Therefore, the finding recorded by learned trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove the place of incident as alleged in the F.I.R. is perverse. Likewise extending benefit of doubt to respondents on the ground that incident took place on the door of respondent Murlidhar Pathak when he was being hurled abuses and assaulted by deceased Ram Aasare Pathak, the mob inflicted injuries on the person of Ram Aasare Pathak was unwarranted and the aforesaid finding recorded by learned trial Court is against the weight of evidence on record. Hence it deserves to be set aside. 27. Likewise, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse when he says that since the river Jamuna is flowing east-west at a distance of 50 steps towards north of the village of the deceased, therefore, there was no occasion for the deceased to go at the place of occurrence in order to reach on the bank of said river to attend the call of nature as the said place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 300-325 Gaja towards south-west from the village. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 that the Ghat of the river is towards west of the said village. Deceased used to go towards the said Ghat through the same road in the morning to attend the call of nature followed by his taking bath on the Ghat and thereafter, plucking some flowers and Belpatra he used to return for his prayer before Hanuman Ji & Shankar Ji Moorti installed at his house. Therefore, there is nothing unusual if the deceased was going through road to reach the said Ghat for the aforesaid purpose. Therefore, there is nothing unusual if the deceased was going through road to reach the said Ghat for the aforesaid purpose. The view taken by the learned trial Court contrary to it is not tenable and deserves to be set aside. 28. Learned A.G.A. has argued that no doubt respondent Murlidhar Pathak sustained injuries at his person but those injuries were not received by him in the incident of murder at the road near Primari Pathshala rather the said injuries were caused at his person by police at 4:00 a.m. On 7.10.1981 during the course of his arrest from Fagva River. After his arrest, he was taken to police station by police. The General Diary contains the fact which has been proved by constable Ram Badan Shukla (P.W.-5) who has deposed that accused Murlidhar Pathak was arrested by Sri Sukh Ram Sonkar, officer in-charge of Police Station Bara and was brought at the Police Station on 7.10.1981 at 7:10 a.m. The aforesaid fact entered at Rapat No. 9 on 7.10.1981 in the G.D. He had placed the original G.D. before the trial Court during the evidence and has filed the copy thereof which is Exhibit Ka-6. This witness has further deposed that he himself has examined the body of Murlidhar. He noticed three injuries at his person and mentioned the same in the General Diary. Sri Sukh Ram Sonkar I.O. (P.W.-7) has deposed that at about 4:00 a.m. On 7.10.1981 he arrested accused Murlidhar Pathak near the river of Fahawa bridge. Looking to the police accused Murlidhar tried to flee away, therefore, injuries were caused to him by police during his arrest. His injuries were noted in the G.D. The copy of which is Exhibit Ka-6. The other three accused remained absconded throughout and their properties were attached in pursuance of the order passed under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the factum of arrest and existence of injury on the person of Murlidhar has been mentioned in the G.D. and Parcha No. 2 of the case Diary. He denied the suggestion of defence that no injury was caused to Murlidhar Pathak during the course of his arrest. He further denied that Murlidhar was arrested from his house. He denied the suggestion of defence that no injury was caused to Murlidhar Pathak during the course of his arrest. He further denied that Murlidhar was arrested from his house. Sri Shatrughan Prasad Pathak (P.W.-2), Lal Mani (P.W.-3) and Ram Ganesh Pathak (P.W.-4), the witnesses of fact who has given ocular testimony, have clearly and categorically stated that prosecution witnesses were empty handed and no injury whatsoever was caused to Murlidhar Pathak accused during incident which took place at the road near Primary Pathashala. They have been cross-examined in detail but nothing could be fetched out to disbelieve their aforesaid testimonies. Even then ignoring aforesaid established facts that Murlidhar Pathak did not sustain injury during the course of incident of murder of Ram Aasare Pathak, learned trial Court recorded a finding that he sustained injury during the incident. It is not a case of respondents that Murlidhar Pathak sustained any injury on the road near Primary Pathashala where the dead body was found. 29. Learned trial Court has recorded his finding that Murlidhar Pathak sustained injuries in the incident on the basis of the evidence of defence witnesses viz. Dr. Gogiya (D.W.-1), Dr. P.L. Nigam (D.W.-2) and Dr. Iqbal Hussain, Radiologist, (D.W.-3). We have scrutinize the evidence of these D.Ws. Dr. J.S. Gogiya, Medical Officer Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad (D.W.-1) has deposed that on 7.10.1981, he was posted as Medical Officer in Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad. He medically examined Murlidhar accused in jail at 6:45 p.m. On 7.10.1981 and found following three injuries at his person : 1. Abrasion contusion 3 inch x 2 inch on the dorsal surface of right forearm lower 1/3rd. Redish blue in colour. 2. Abrasion contusion 3-1/2 inch x 2 inch on the dorsal surface of left forearm lower 1/3rd. Redish blue in colour. 3. Lacerated wound 1 inch x ½ inch skin deep in the front of left leg middle. Margins of wounds irregular. Injuries No. 1 and 2 were kept under observation and x-ray was advised for the same. Injury No. 3 was diagnosed to be caused with blunt object. The duration of the injuries was one day. 30. He has proved this injury report as Exhibit Ka-1. He opined that the probability of occurring these injuries on the person of Murlidhar Pathak on 6.10.1981 at about 6:00, 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. is meager. However, it may occur. Injury No. 3 was diagnosed to be caused with blunt object. The duration of the injuries was one day. 30. He has proved this injury report as Exhibit Ka-1. He opined that the probability of occurring these injuries on the person of Murlidhar Pathak on 6.10.1981 at about 6:00, 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. is meager. However, it may occur. In cross-examination, he deposed that the pages of the register containing the aforesaid injuries does not bear any numbering. He further deposed that there is overwriting on the date on which he examined the injured. Before the medical examination of Murlidhar, some injured was examined in the said register on 6.10.1981 and thereafter, on 10.10.1981. The page on which the injuries of Murlidhar Pathak was noted contained another medical examination of other person namely Mohan Lal. Prior to this medical examination in the said register, there were 100 examination of other persons prior to the examination of Murlidhar Pathak but at no page of the said register except in this case of Murlidhar Pathak it is found that the injuries of two persons were noted on a single page. Again he deposed that the injuries of Murlidhar Pathak was noted in the bottom of the said page within a space of 2/3 of the page. In cross-examination, he deposed that under trial prisoners who are subjected to medical examination by him are examined next day of being lodged in jail. All the persons except Murlidhar Pathak have been medically examined before 1:00 p.m. on the concerned dates but here in this case it is found that Murlidhar Pathak was examined on the very day i.e. on 7.10.1981, he was lodged in jail and not on the next date. Likewise he examined him at about 6:45 p.m. which was not the general tendency and practice as per his own saying of Dr. J.S. Gogiya (D.W.-1). 31. About the duration of the injuries of Murlidhar Pathak, he has deposed that the duration of injury was about one day. Elaborating his opinion, he deposed that when the duration of injuries used to be in between 12 hours to 24 hours, he determines it as one day old. In the aforesaid duration four hours margin may be given as per his own evidence. In the light of aforesaid evidence of Dr. Elaborating his opinion, he deposed that when the duration of injuries used to be in between 12 hours to 24 hours, he determines it as one day old. In the aforesaid duration four hours margin may be given as per his own evidence. In the light of aforesaid evidence of Dr. J.S. Gogiya (D.W.-1), it transpires that the injuries on the person of Murlidhar Pathak could not have occurred on 6.10.1981 at about 7:00 a.m. His injuries could, utmost, occur after 2:45 p.m. on 6.10.1981 but not prior to it. By no stretch of imagination, this duration is extended up to date and time of incident alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence of Sukhram Sonkar, (P.W.-7) I.O. of the case, finds corroborating support that in fact these injuries were caused by police at about 4:00 a.m. on 7.10.1981, therefore, finding of the learned trial Court that Murlidhar Pathak sustained injuries during the incident of murder, is not possible. 32. However, the aforesaid injuries were simple in nature in view of the statement of Dr. J.S. Gogiya (D.W.-1) who says that aforesaid injuries were neither grievous nor severe nor fatal to life. Contrary to it, Dr. P. L. Nigam (D.W.-2) has deposed that he was Medical Officer in T. B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad. On 21.10.1981 at about 11:30 a.m. he medically examined Murlidhar Pathak. Be it known, as it appears, that by that time Murlidhar had come out from the jail and he got himself medically examined by the aforesaid doctor who noticed injuries at his person as already noted. 33. The doctor has opined that those injuries could have been caused within 10 to 20 days. In examination-in-chief, he has deposed that the occurrence of those injuries on 6.10.1981 at about 6:00, 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. is probable which could have been caused by lathi and danda. Be it known that Murlidhar does not say that he was assaulted by anyone by lathi and danda. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that there should be a difference of 3-4 hours in between causing of injury No. 3 on the one hand and injury No. 1 and 2 on the other. This witness has deposed that he saw papadi on injuri No. 2 and there was callous formation in injury No. 1. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that there should be a difference of 3-4 hours in between causing of injury No. 3 on the one hand and injury No. 1 and 2 on the other. This witness has deposed that he saw papadi on injuri No. 2 and there was callous formation in injury No. 1. But in his cross-examination he deposed that papadi comes out from the injury within 4-5 days and in lacerated wound no papadi is formed. Again he says that Chot No. 1 and 2 might have been lacerated wound and not the abrasion contusion. Therefore, it is amply clear that injuries which were abrasion contusion as per D.W.-1 has now been stated by D.W.-2 to be lacerated wound. Now the evidence of aforesaid Doctor P.L. Nigam (D.W.-2) is belied by the evidence of Dr. Iqbal Hussain ( D.W.-3) who has deposed that he was radiologist in T. B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad and has x-rayed the right and left hand of Murlidhar Pathak referred by Doctor P. L. Nigam (D.W.-2). He noticed that there was fracture in ulna of right hand and in radius of left hand of Murlidhar Pathak. He has proved x-ray report Exhibits Kha-3 and 4 respectively. This doctor has submitted the x-ray report of the aforesaid injury of Murlidhar Pathak on 21.10.1981 and on the point of duration he has given his evidence that the aforesaid injuries sustained by the injured could have been caused within seven days. The reason behind it given by him was that there was no callous formation. He further deposed that there is probability that those injuries might have been caused within two or three days prior to 21.10.1981. In clear words he said that these injuries could not have been 15 days old although he has stated that callous formation starts within 7 to 14 days and on its basis the injuries could not have been caused beyond a period of 14 days. In view of the aforesaid evidence of Dr. In clear words he said that these injuries could not have been 15 days old although he has stated that callous formation starts within 7 to 14 days and on its basis the injuries could not have been caused beyond a period of 14 days. In view of the aforesaid evidence of Dr. Iqbal Hussain (D.W.-3), it is proved beyond doubt that Murlidhar Pathak did not sustain injuries in the incident of murder on 6.10.1981 at about 7:00 a.m. Non start of callous formation is a suggestive factor that the grievous injuries (Fracture) were caused within a week prior to 21.10.1981 but not on 6.10.1981 at 7:00 a.m. Therefore, there appears substance in the contentions of the learned A.G.A. that ignoring the aforesaid medical evidence on record adduced by accused themselves, the learned trial Court arbitrarily recorded the finding that Murlidhar Pathak had sustained grievous injuries during the incident of murder. Therefore, that is not tenable under the law. 34. The position being so, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that Murlidhar sustained grievous injury at his person during the incident of murder of Ram Aasare Pathak. Therefore, no benefit of those injuries could have been extended to respondents. Two things are necessary for extending benefit to accused for non-explanation of the grievous injuries, if any, existing at his person which are as follows : (i) That accused sustained grievous injuries at his person; (ii) That the said injuries were caused during the course of the incident alleged by the prosecution and the prosecution has not explained the same as to how the accused sustained injuries. Since it is not proved on the record that Murlidhar sustained grievous injuries during the course of incident of murder, therefore, the benefit extended by the trial Court was uncalled for. 35. Likewise the finding of learned trial Court that since there is no firearm injury on the person of the deceased, therefore, the medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimony is perverse and deserves to be set aside. The evidence of eye-witnesses is to the effect that when after sustaining the injuries of lathi and ballam, Ram Aasare Pathak fell down on the earth and witnesses were attracted, all the accused took to their heals. The evidence of eye-witnesses is to the effect that when after sustaining the injuries of lathi and ballam, Ram Aasare Pathak fell down on the earth and witnesses were attracted, all the accused took to their heals. But prior to their leaving place of occurrence, accused Ram Raj Pathak fired his pistol towards the deceased but there is no evidence on record that the said fire caused any injuries to the deceased. Shatrughan Prasad Pathak has clearly deposed that Ram Aasare had not sustained any firearm injury although Ram Raj Pathak has fired at him. The finding of the learned trial Court that since the fire was made from a distance of 5-6 feet from Ram Aasare Pathak when he fell down on the earth, therefore, within all probability Ram Aasare Pathak should have sustained firearm injuries is based on conjecture and surmises and therefore, this finding deserves to be set aside. 36. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per the evidence of Dr. Nisar Ahmad, P.W. 8 who proved the postmortem examination report Exhibit Ka-14 the stomach and small intestine of deceased were empty whereas the large intestine was half-full and the rectum was empty which falsify the theory of prosecution that deceased was going to attend the call of nature. 37. We are of the view that the evidence given by the doctor about the rectum being empty is based on no material because there was no column in the postmortem examination report showing the position of rectum and, therefore, in the said postmortem examination report Exhibit Ka-14 nowhere it has been mentioned that the rectum was empty. Therefore, the evidence of the doctor to that effect is based on no material and cannot be given much weight. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the rectum is part and parcel of large intestine. No fresh column about the position of rectum is needed in the postmortem examination report. If this submission of learned counsel for the respondent is taken to be correct for a moment even then no benefit could accrue to the respondent because doctor has noticed that large intestine was half-full with fecal matters. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined on facts that deceased was observing Navratri Brat, therefore, deceased living on only fruits and juice during those days cannot be ruled out. It has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined on facts that deceased was observing Navratri Brat, therefore, deceased living on only fruits and juice during those days cannot be ruled out. Moreover, doctor’s statement is only opinion evidence and in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not capable of brushing aside the ocular testimony of reliable witnesses of facts viz. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 & P.W. 4 who say that it were the accused persons who committed the murder of the deceased in their view. 38. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that all the witnesses of the fact examined in this case are related to each other. No independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. Motive has not been proved. All the four prosecution witnesses are chance witnesses. The case of the prosecution is that deceased was Gram Pradhan of his village for about two decades. The atrocities and mischief committed by accused persons against the poor peasantry were always opposed by him and therefore accused bore grudges against him and that was the cause of his murder. 39. It is settled proposition of law that the testimony of related or interested or inimical witnesses cannot be discarded merely because the witnesses are inimical, interested or related. The law requires that his testimony should go under strict judicial scrutiny. Learned A.G.A. has relied on a case law Shyam Babu v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 651 wherein it was held that if the statement of witnesses, who are relatives or known to the parties affected is credible, reliable, trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party or friend, etc. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated in Mano Dutt v. State of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79 and Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 . We have tested the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined on facts on the anvil of strict judicial scrutiny and came to the conclusion that they are wholly reliable witnesses and the learned trial Court has wrongly disbelieved them on the ground that they are related, interested, inimical and chance witnesses. We have tested the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined on facts on the anvil of strict judicial scrutiny and came to the conclusion that they are wholly reliable witnesses and the learned trial Court has wrongly disbelieved them on the ground that they are related, interested, inimical and chance witnesses. The incident has taken place in the vicinity of their abadi in between their house and agricultural field and in the morning hours, peasants used to go to look after their field. Therefore, they cannot be said to be chance witnesses and the arrival of P.Ws. at the scene of occurrence cannot be said to be unnatural and improbable on the date, time and place of incident. Likewise, non-examination of any other independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case as generally nobody wants to come forward to support even a genuine case of one party against the other party of the same village. 40. As regards the motive, it is finally settled that in a case based on direct evidence, motive does not play any important role but in this case, in hand, parties do admit that the relation in between them inter-se was strained. Facts admitted need not be proved. Suffice it to say that the relation in between the parties were not cordial rather it was strained which is the motive of this incident. No doubt, motive prompts a man to commit the crime and on the other hand it may be the reason of false implication as well but motive by itself is not sufficient to draw any conclusion. The Court is to reach at a logical conclusion on the basis of evidence on record. In this case we have discussed the evidence led by the parties in detail and we are of the view that the motive alleged was the cause of the murder of the deceased and due to the said motive, appellants were not falsely implicated in this case. 41. In this case we have discussed the evidence led by the parties in detail and we are of the view that the motive alleged was the cause of the murder of the deceased and due to the said motive, appellants were not falsely implicated in this case. 41. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that FIR is antedated on the following two grounds : (i) That the time of lodging the report and the time of beginning and end of the preparation of inquest report (Ext.Ka-3) were subsequently mentioned therein and secondly, that the dead body under sealed condition was received in the mortuary on 6th October, 1981, at 6.00 p.m. whereas the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination received the papers on 7.101981, at 3.00 p.m. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if the papers were sent alongwith the dead body then both the things should have been received to the doctor at a time. Be it known that the dead body is received in mortuary by the employees of mortuary whereas the doctor requires the papers at the time when he actually proceeds to subject the dead body to post-mortem examination. It has come in the evidence of Constable Kunwar Bahadur P.W. 6 that he was handed over the dead body and the papers on 6.10.1981 at 1.35 p.m. at spot to carry it to the District Headquarter for postmortem examination and he handed over the dead body to mortuary on 6.10.1981 at 6.00 p.m. and he handedover the papers to the doctor on 7.10.1981 at the time when he identified the dead body before the said doctor. There is nothing to disbelieve his testimony. The inquest (Ext.Ka-7) contains that alongwith the inquest, seven other papers including the copy of the FIR was sent to mortuary alongwith the dead body. Mere subsequent filling of the time of lodging the report etc. in the relevant column of the inquest by erring police officer who prepared the same but prior to its dispatch to mortuary is not sufficient to hold that FIR is antedated and no benefit thereof shall accrue to the respondent. Such negligence of the Inquest Officer, if any, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case. 42. Such negligence of the Inquest Officer, if any, cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the case. 42. From the discussions and appraisal of evidence on record, it is amply clear that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the view taken by the learned trial Court contrary to it, is perverse and not possible. It is not a case of two probable views rather it is a case wherein the view taken by learned trial Court is not ‘possible’ rather it is an ‘erroneous and wrong view’. The finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court is based on conjecture and surmises ignoring the material admissible, reliable, cogent, clinching evidence documentary as well as oral evidence on record which is fully supported by the medical evidence. The factual and legal position discussed above, makes it crystal clear that case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the accused-respondent is of no help to the respondent. In the result, Government Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.1982 is reversed. Accused Gurudatta Pathak is found guilty for the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and he is, accordingly, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, he is to further undergo a sentence of one year. Accused Gurudatta Pathak is directed to surrender within one month before the learned C.J.M., Allahabad to serve out the sentence awarded to him. In case, he does not surrender before him within the stipulated period, learned C.J.M., Allahabad shall commit him to custody as per law. Registry is directed to transmit the copy of this judgment to learned C.J.M., Allahabad immediately for compliance. —————