JUDGMENT Kalimullah Khan, J. 1. This Government Appeal under section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed by State of U.P. against Bhadai son of Agardi, Chhotku son of Duber, Ram Dhani son of Jag Mohan, Mata Prasad son of Ram Dhani, Shyam Lal son of Kulbul and Moti son of Mian Din, all R/o Village Mathia Gosain, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti against impugned judgment and order dated 15.12.1981 passed by Sri C. Mohan, the then Sessions Judge, Basti in S.T. No. 60 of 1981 whereby he has recorded a finding of acquittal against all the six aforesaid accused respondents under sections 147, 148, 302 and 307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. as well as the charges under section 302/307 I.P.C. simplicitor. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the impugned judgment and order is against the law and facts of the case; there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. disclosing the names of all the accused with minute details of the incident; the evidence of all the witnesses are corroborated by medical evidence; that relationship and interested-ness inter se of the witnesses is no ground to discard their testimonies and the minor contradictions occurred in the depositions of the witnesses are but natural and; lastly, that the impugned judgment and order is perverse and against the weight of evidence on record causing miscarriage of justice. 2. In nutshell the prosecution case is that on 21.1.1981 at about 4: 00 p.m. first informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and his uncle Bhola alongwith Somai Kewat were returning from Court. In the way near Chilma Bazar accused Chotku and Bhadai armed with country made pistols and cartridges, Ram Dhani armed with spear, Mata Prasad, Shyam Lal and Moti armed with lathi in furtherance of their common object to commit the murder of Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and Bhola intercepted them and assaulted with the aforesaid weapons causing injuries to informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and Bhola. The witnesses Ram Jiawan and Rajendra Prasad witnessed the incident. Bhola succumbed to his injuries. 3. Written report was lodged by the informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan in the police station Kalwari, District Basti. Since, the incident occurred within the limits of P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti, therefore, the papers were transmitted there and investigation was conducted by P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti. After observing the necessary formalities the dead body was sent to mortuary. 3. Written report was lodged by the informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan in the police station Kalwari, District Basti. Since, the incident occurred within the limits of P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti, therefore, the papers were transmitted there and investigation was conducted by P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti. After observing the necessary formalities the dead body was sent to mortuary. Postmortem was conducted on the body of Bhola on 22.1.1981 at 3: 00 p.m. Following ante-mortem injuries were noticed at his person: (i) Gun shot wound of entrance 3.5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. x oral cavity deep left upper lip. 1.5 c.m. above left angle mouth. Directed down wards, margins inverted, blackening, tattooing, charring around the wound margins present. (ii) Gun shot wound of exit. 6.5 c.m. x 4.5 c.m. x oral cavity deep lower surface left side chin, 5 c.m. below left angle mouth. Directed upwards, margins everted. No blackening, No tattooing, No charring around wound margins present. This wound is communicating with injury No. 1. In between injury Nos. 1 and 2 upper and lower jaw, tongue, muscles and greater vessels on left side badly lacerated. (iii) Gun shot wound 3.5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. x through and through whole thickness pinna right ear. Margins on anterior aspect inverted. There is blackening, tattooing, charring present on the wound margins on the posterior aspect. Margins are everted, there is no blackening, No tattooing, No charring present around the wound margins. (iv) Lacerated wound 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x scalp deep back of left side head 10 c.m. behind left ear. In internal examination upper and lower jaw with multiple teeth fractured into multiple pieces and vessels and muscles badly lacerated in between injury Nos. 1 and 2. The death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem gun shot injuries. No wadding material and metallic shot recovered from injury Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Surya Narayan @ Sirjan, first informant was medically examined on 21.1.1981 at 6: 25 p.m. Following injuries were found at his person: (i) Lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep on mid line head 12 c.m. from root of nose, bleeding present. (ii) Lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x scalp deep on posterior part of head 3 c.m. behind injury No. 1 bleeding present. (ii) Lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x scalp deep on posterior part of head 3 c.m. behind injury No. 1 bleeding present. (iii) Multiple lacerated wound on left side head in an area of 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. large measuring 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. and swelling 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. situated 8 c.m. above left ear, bleeding present. (iv) Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side head situated 1 c.m. behind injury No. 3 bleeding present. (v) Lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side head 6 c.m. above left ear. (vi) Lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep on back of head 5 c.m. above occipital from left side, bleeding present. (vii) Lacerated wound 4.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep on back of right side head 3 c.m. from right ear, bleeding present. (viii) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x muscle deep on right side back of head 3 c.m. from occipital from left side, bleeding present. (ix) Traumatic swelling 10 c.m. x 9 c.m. on left side face and left temporal region just in front of bridge left ear. (x) Abrasion 1.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on left side chin. (xi) Traumatic swelling 6 c.m. x all around forearm underlying bone fractured. Red. (xii) Traumatic swelling 9 c.m. x 8 c.m. underlying left hand suspected fracture. Red. (xiii) C/o. pain on left thigh back no visible injury seen. Opinion: Injury No. 10 is simple, rest kept U.O. object to dry. All are caused by some hard and blunt object except No. 10 and by friction just one hard object. Duration of injury fresh, Adv. X-ray of head and right forearm and left hand. 4. After completing investigation, I.O. submitted charge-sheet. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges under sections 147and 302/307 I.P.C. read with section 149 I.P.C. were framed against accused Bhadai aged about 40 years, Chhotku aged about 60 years, Ram Dhani aged about 45 years, Mata Prasad aged about 17 years, Shyam Lal aged about 30 years and Moti aged about 40 years. All R/o Mathia Gosain, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti. All R/o Mathia Gosain, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Basti. In addition to it accused Bhadai and Chhotku were charged for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. simplicitor while Shyam Lal and Moti were charged for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. simplicitor. 5. All the accused denied the prosecution allegations and claimed their trial. 6. In order to prove its case prosecution examined eight prosecution witnesses in all. 7. Surya Narayan @ Sirjan, P.W. 1, Dhunmum, P.W. 2 and Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 3 are the prosecution witness examined on facts. All the three P.Ws. supported the prosecution case. Rest witnesses are formal in nature including the doctor, head constable and S.I. In their examination under section313 Cr.P.C. all the accused denied the prosecution case and claimed their false implication in this case on the ground of enmity. Since, it was not a case of no evidence, accused were called upon to enter into their defence. They did not examine any witness in their defence, however, they have filed documentary evidence as discussed in Lower Court judgment. 8. Learned Trial Court formulated following two points for determination of this case: (i) whether the deceased was murdered, informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan was injured on the date, time and place and in the manner alleged by prosecution? (ii) whether the prosecution evidence establish beyond all reasonable doubt the participation of accused or anyone out of them in the commission of this crime? If so the offence or offences made out against accused who is or are held to have participated in the commission of the crime. 9. On the basis of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court returned the finding of point No. 1 in affirmative whereas he gave negative finding on point No. 2 noted above on the ground that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses examined on facts who are highly interested and highly inimical to accused. Some other discrepancies occurred in the evidence of the prosecution witness inter se have also been highlighted in the judgment impugned which need not be discussed here in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Feeling aggrieved State of U.P. has filed this criminal appeal. 11. During the pendency of this criminal appeal accused Chhotku respondent No. 2 died and, therefore, this criminal appeal against him stood abated vide order dated 28.3.2014. 10. Feeling aggrieved State of U.P. has filed this criminal appeal. 11. During the pendency of this criminal appeal accused Chhotku respondent No. 2 died and, therefore, this criminal appeal against him stood abated vide order dated 28.3.2014. Therefore, this judgment pertains to only rest of the accused respondents. 12. We have heard Sri D.I. Faridi, learned A.G.A. for the State appellant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for surviving respondents. Perused the record. 13. In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1973 SC 2622 , a three-Judge Bench has opined thus (Para. 5 of AIR): "..........there are no fetters on the plenary power of the Appellate Court to review the whole evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded and, indeed, it has a duty to scrutinize the probative material de novo, informed, however, by the weighty thought that the rebuttal innocence attributed to the accused having been converted into an acquittal the homage of our jurisprudence owes to individual liberty constrains the higher Court not to upset the finding without very convincing reasons and comprehensive consideration." 14. Similar view has been expressed in Girija Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of M.P. 2007 (Suppl.) ACC 96 (SC), and State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran 2006 (Suppl.) ACC 891 (SC). From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as day that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has a duty to scrutinize the evidence and sometimes it is an obligation on the part of the High Court to do so. The power is not curtailed by any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also worthy to note that while re-appreciating and reconsidering the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is based, certain other principles pertaining to other facets are to be borne in mind. The said aspects have been encapsulated in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka 2007 (58) ACC 402 (SC), as under (Para. 39 of AIR, AIR SCW): "(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. 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." 15. Quite apart from the above, the High Court is required to see that unless there are substantial and compelling circumstance, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta 2012 (76) ACC 302 (SC) : 2012 (109) AIC 189. 16. The perusal of the records and the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court make it clear that the view taken by learned Trial Court is equally possible and there is no legal flaw or factual fault in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Undisputedly, the prosecution witnesses Surya Narayan @ Sirjan, P.W. 1, Dhunmun, P.W. 2 and Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 3 are related inter se and they have: criminal antecedents. They are highly inimical to accused. First informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and Bhola had litigation with accused and enmities with the persons other than informant and deceased as well. Therefore, their testimonies are required to pass through strict judicial scrutiny. 17. Surya Narayan @ Sirjan, P.W. 1 first informant of the case, is an injured witness. In his written report he has clearly and categorically deposed that he and deceased Bhola were assaulted by accused with country made pistol, spear and lathi. In his deposition he has admitted that Bhola deceased was his real uncle. Dhunmun, P.W. 2 has stated that Bhola deceased was his elder brother and Ram Dhani (accused) was his younger brother. Accused Mata Prasad is the son of Ram Dhani and informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan injured is son of his real elder brother Bhullan. He claims to be a witness of this incident. Dhunmun, P.W. 2 has stated that Bhola deceased was his elder brother and Ram Dhani (accused) was his younger brother. Accused Mata Prasad is the son of Ram Dhani and informant Surya Narayan @ Sirjan injured is son of his real elder brother Bhullan. He claims to be a witness of this incident. He supported the prosecution story and deposed that on 21.1.1981 at 4: 00 p.m. within the limits of P.S. Kaptanganj Bhola and Surya Narayan @ Sirjan were belabored by accused with country made pistol, spear and lathi. Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 3 has stated that on the day of incident he was going to Chilma Bazar. He saw near Godam Bhola and Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and an unknown person coming towards him. Bhola and Surya Narayan @ Sirjan were walking on foot with their cycles and when they reached at the western and southern side of Godam all the six accused appeared and Bhadai accused made exhortation that 'Sale mukadama ladate ho aaj jan se khatam kar denge' whereupon all the accused assaulted Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and Bhola with their respective weapons viz. Country made pistol, lathi and spear. 18. The injury report of Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and post-mortem report of Bhola do not contain any spear injury at all. Likewise, Surya Narayan @ Sirjan does not appear to have sustained any fire arm injury at his person. Therefore, the prosecution case as embedded in the F.I.R. as well as the depositions of all the above three P.Ws. are fully inconsistent with the medical evidence and to bring the ocular testimonies of these witnesses in the harmony and consistency with the medical evidence, prosecution apparently appears to have taken a twist in their depositions during trial especially after perusal of the injury report and the autopsy and that is why all these three witnesses Surya Narayan @ Sirjan, Dhunmun and Rajendra Prasad started deposing that Ram Dhani accused respondent used his spear as lathi and from the blunt portion of the spear Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and Bhola were assaulted but it was the futile attempt of the prosecution witnesses on facts to convince the Court to believe their depositions. It is full of absurdity inasmuch as the first question which arises in the judicial mind is that if all the six accused with a prearranged plan, cool calculated scheme having formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons viz. country made pistol, lathi and spear had a common object to commit the murder of Surya Narayan @ Sirjan and Bhola and they succeeded in apprehending them on the Highway, why after all they would prefer not to inflict spear injury and give blow with the lathi portion of the spear. The intention to commit murder might have been implemented by use of sharp and penetrating portion of the spear and the accused cannot be supposed to allow concession or relaxation to the victim and the second question which arises in the judicial mind of the Court is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case where witnesses are related and interested and highly inimical to the accused would be given such a latitude and hold them wholly reliable witnesses even if they have improved their case during trial at the risk of absurdity to bring their depositions in the tune of medical evidence. The answer is in negative. If the prosecution does not say in the F.I.R. that the spear was used as lathi from its blunt side rather it contains therein that injuries were caused with spear and medical evidence does not support their version, they cannot be allowed to change their stand and say that spear was not used in the manner as spear is normally used in natural course rather it was used in an unnatural way. Such stand is taken by the prosecution witnesses only with a view to reconcile the anomaly and inconsistency occurred in between the ocular testimony and medical evidence. In this case there is inconsistency in the oral testimony and medical evidence not only on the issue of absence of spear injury on the person of informant and body of deceased rather there is another inconsistency in the ocular testimony of the witness and medical evidence on the point of absence of fire arm injury on the person of Surya Narayan @ Sirjan, first informant. 19. The presence of injuries on the person of a witness may be a guarantee of his presence at spot but that is no guarantee of truthfulness of his deposition. 20. 19. The presence of injuries on the person of a witness may be a guarantee of his presence at spot but that is no guarantee of truthfulness of his deposition. 20. Keeping in view the aforesaid inconsistency in between the ocular testimony and medical evidence the learned Trial Court has taken a view of acquittal. That cannot be said to be 'a perverse view' or 'not a possible view' and if the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a possible view, as it is in the present case, it is not permissible under the law to reverse such finding of acquittal recorded by him. In the result Government Appeal fails. Government Appeal No. 960 of 1982 is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order is affirmed.