JUDGMENT Hon’ble Kalimullah Khan, J.—This Government Appeal No. 219 of 1982, under Section 378 Cr.P.C., has been filed by State of Uttar Pradesh against accused respondent Om Veer son of Shish Ram, Daya Ram son of Latur, Sateshwar son of Ravi Dutt, Jai Bhagwan son of Som Dutt, all residents of village Nagwa, P.S. Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.10.1981, delivered by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1981, under Section 302, 302/34 IPC challenging the same on the ground that it is against the law and facts of the case; it is perverse besides being recorded against the weight of evidence on record. The prayer has been made to set aside the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal and convict & sentence the accused respondents, according to law. 2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that earlier there was a dispute in between the parties with respect to sweet potatoes, which had resulted into marpeet. Parties were challaned. However, subsequently, they had entered into compromise and resolved their disputes. Apart from the aforesaid motive, 1-1/2 years back, in the marriage ceremony of the nephew of first informant Padam Singh (P.W.1), accused respondent Om Veer in a drunken state assaulted the jeep driver. It infuriated the complainant as he felt insulted and turned out the accused Om Veer from the marriage function. Due to this also, the respondents bore enmity. 3. On 19.2.1981, at about 09.00 p.m, ‘ghurcharhi’ ceremony was being performed for the marriage of Rampal, the nephew of the first informant. Rampal, Satish, Veer Singh, first informant, Balveer, Hari Singh and the ladies and children participated therein. Singing songs, they reached the temple situated at the outskirts of the village. They offered money on the deorhi in the temple. Except Dharamvir, Hari Singh, Balbir, Rampal, the bridegroom and his mother-in-laws’ son Satish and the first informant Padam Singh (P.W.1) each and every participants returned to their houses. There was a gas lantern with Dharamvir. The aforesaid persons then went to Samadhi. Rampal and Satish went inside the Samadhi while others remained standing there. When Rampal and Satish came out of the Samadhi, accused Daya Ram, Sateshwar, Jai Bhagwan and Omvir, who had already concealed themselves appeared abruptly. Daya Ram had a lathi. Omvir was armed with a single barrel gun. The aforesaid persons then went to Samadhi. Rampal and Satish went inside the Samadhi while others remained standing there. When Rampal and Satish came out of the Samadhi, accused Daya Ram, Sateshwar, Jai Bhagwan and Omvir, who had already concealed themselves appeared abruptly. Daya Ram had a lathi. Omvir was armed with a single barrel gun. Sateshwar and Jai Bhagwan had country made pistols with them. It is further alleged by the prosecution that accused respondent Daya Ram made exhortation that Satish was the son of Chajju Singh Daroga, who did pairvi, therefore, Satish and Rampal should get the taste of pairvi. Jai Bhagwan, Sateshwar and Omvir made intermittent gun fire which caused firearm injuries to Rampal and Satish. The first informant Padam Singh and others made alarm and attempted to apprehend the assailants but the assailants took to their heels with a threatening that they may receive the same fate as their children had received. Satish died at the spot. Rampal was, however, alive. He was taken to the baithak and was kept on a cot, but by then, he also succumbed to his injuries. The first informant Padam Singh (P.W.1), leaving both the dead bodies there, proceeded for the police station on a tractor of Raj Singh, where he lodged oral report. On its basis, check report (Ex.Ka-1) was drawn by constable clerk Vinaypal at 00.15 a.m. on 20.2.1981. The case was registered in the general diary, the copy of which has been proved as Ex.Ka-2 on record. Narendra Pal Singh, S.I., was entrusted with the investigation. Inquest was prepared and the dead bodies were sent to mortuary alongwith necessary papers for post-mortem examination. Witnesses were interrogated. Site plan was prepared. After completing the investigation, I.O., Narendrapal Singh, submitted the charge-sheet (Ex.Ka-19). 4. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against accused Omvir, Jai Bhagwan and Sateshwar while accused Daya Ram was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. All the four accused denied the charges and claimed their trial. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Padam Singh (P.W.1), the first informant, Hari Singh (P.W.2) and Balvir (P.W.3), as witnesses of fact. S.I. Narendrapal Singh (P.W.4) is the I.O. and Dr. D.P. Arora (P.W.5) has conducted the postmortem examination on the bodies of both the deceased. Constable Mohammad Akhtar (P.W.6) had taken the dead bodies to mortuary. 5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined Padam Singh (P.W.1), the first informant, Hari Singh (P.W.2) and Balvir (P.W.3), as witnesses of fact. S.I. Narendrapal Singh (P.W.4) is the I.O. and Dr. D.P. Arora (P.W.5) has conducted the postmortem examination on the bodies of both the deceased. Constable Mohammad Akhtar (P.W.6) had taken the dead bodies to mortuary. Besides it, prosecution has also relied upon the documents Ex.Ka-1 to Ex.Ka-21 and material Ex.-1 to Ex.-22, in support of its case. The witnesses of facts had supported the prosecution story as embedded in the FIR by deposing that on the exhortation of accused Daya Ram, rest three accused, Omveer, Sateshwar and Jai Bhagwan caused firearm injuries to Rampal and Satish and committed their murder. 6. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the correctness of the prosecution evidence and attributed their false implication on account of enmity. Accused Omvir stated that marriage of the alleged bride with whom deceased Rampal was to be married had already been settled with one Babli. After the death of Rampal, the marriage of the said bride was solemnized with the said Babli. Accused Daya Ram stated that first informant Padam Singh and others wanted to purchase the land of one Rampal (other than the deceased Rampal). They had got the sale-deed of some of the land of Rampal executed in their favour while some of the land was still left out and they wanted to take the same as well. First informant and others had forbidden him to take that land but he got it transferred in his favour through registered sale-deed prior to a month of the incident and, therefore, complainant bore enmity against him. Rest accused respondents did not take any specific case. On the basis of the evidence on record, learned trial Court recorded a finding of acquittal of all the four respondents, vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.1981. 7. Feeling aggrieved, State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this Government appeal, as stated above. During the pendency of this Government appeal, accused Jai Bhagwan expired, hence, vide order dated 20.4.2005, the Government appeal stood abated against him. Therefore, this judgment pertains to accused respondents Omvir, Daya Ram and Sateshwar only. 8. We have heard Shri Ram Yesh Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and Shri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for surviving respondent Nos. During the pendency of this Government appeal, accused Jai Bhagwan expired, hence, vide order dated 20.4.2005, the Government appeal stood abated against him. Therefore, this judgment pertains to accused respondents Omvir, Daya Ram and Sateshwar only. 8. We have heard Shri Ram Yesh Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and Shri P.S. Pundir, learned counsel for surviving respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, Omvir, Daya Ram and Sateshwar and perused the record. We are conscious of the fact that we are dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. 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 where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. 9. Para 17 of the case of C.K. Dasegowda and others v. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1381 of 2014 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No4018 of 2012) decided on 15.7.2014) reported in 2014 STPL (Web) 466 SC reads as under : “17. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , it has been held by this Court as under: “39. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , it has been held by this Court as under: “39. In Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., this Court said: 12. 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 the 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. 40. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhunath Jha, 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”. 41. Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., this Court stated; 8. 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”. 41. Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., 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”. (emphasis supplied) 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (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 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. (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 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.” 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position and the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an order of acquittal, the perusal of the evidence on record and the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial Court has recorded the findings of acquittal of respondents on the ground that the three-fold motive alleged by the prosecution has not been proved. Medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimony. FIR is anti-timed. The possibility of the FIR being an outcome of consultation with Chajju Singh Daroga, father of deceased Satish, cannot be ruled out. No independent witness has been examined by the prosecution in spite of their availability at spot. The witnesses examined on facts are highly interested and related to the deceased. No trail of blood was found on the way in between the places where both the dead bodies were found by the Investigating Officer and possibility of false implication of accused in this case cannot be ruled out. 11. We have reviewed and made deep appraisal of evidence on record. The incident of this case has allegedly taken place on 19.2.1981, at 9.30 p.m. while the FIR is said to have been lodged at 00.15 a.m. on 20.2.1981 after covering a distance of six miles from the place of incident to police station Budhana, district Muzaffarnagar. It means that the distance of six miles was covered by the first informant within a period of less than three hours. The deceased Rampal is the real nephew of first informant, Padam Singh. He is said to have been murdered before his own naked eyes. The other deceased Satish is his relative and son of Chajju Singh Daroga, r/o Ghaziabad. The deceased Rampal is the real nephew of first informant, Padam Singh. He is said to have been murdered before his own naked eyes. The other deceased Satish is his relative and son of Chajju Singh Daroga, r/o Ghaziabad. The heart breaking incident of the murders of the two young men at a time when the first informant and his family members were performing the ghurcharhi ceremony of the marriage of deceased Rampal must have shocked him. The other deceased Satish, being the son of Chajju Singh Daroga, must have further shocked him and his family members. The information of murder of Satish must have been given to Chajju Singh Daroga prior to lodging of the FIR as besides being the father of Satish deceased, he was well-known with the importance and technicalities of the FIR. It does not convince the judicial mind that under the aforesaid scenario of fact without informing and waiting for Chajju Singh Daroga, Padam Singh, the first informant, alone would have decided to lodge the FIR within such a short span of time. Admittedly, Chajju Singh Daroga had reached at spot in the morning of 20.2.1981. Moreover, the FIR does not speak that the first informant used any vehicle to reach the police station to lodge the FIR. In this view of the matter, he may be taken to have gone on foot but, as it appears, with a view to make the Court believe that FIR was promptly lodged the evidence was adduced that he had gone to the police station on the tractor of Raj Singh. However, Raj Singh has not been examined, but the evidence of the first informant Padam Singh on the point that he had gone to the police station on a tractor and returned on the same tractor alongwith I.O. and other police constables at spot and reached at about 5.30 in the morning is belied by the evidence of constable Mohammad Akhtar (P.W.6), who had gone with Daroga Ji from thana to the spot and had taken the dead bodies to the mortuary. He had deposed that Daroga Ji and constables reached the place of occurrence at about 4.00 a.m. They went on six different bicycles from police station to place of occurrence. The complainant was on the cycle of a constable from police station to the place of occurrence. He had deposed that Daroga Ji and constables reached the place of occurrence at about 4.00 a.m. They went on six different bicycles from police station to place of occurrence. The complainant was on the cycle of a constable from police station to the place of occurrence. The aforesaid evidence of constable Mohammad Akhtar is unchallenged which falsifies the testimonies of complainant and Daroga Ji that they had gone on a tractor from the police station to the place of incident. Learned trial Court has rightly observed that this fact appears to have been introduced later on. However, in view of the evidence of constable Mohammad Akhtar (P.W.6), we are in agreement with the findings of learned trial Court recorded in the impugned judgment that introduction of this tractor is meaningful. I.O. of the case admits in his cross-examination that when he reached at the spot at about 5.30 a.m., Chajju Singh Daroga was present there and there was a light of gas lantern but still he did not prepare the inquest reports on the bodies of the deceased persons on the pretext that there were darkness in the night. The finding of learned trial Court recorded to the effect that panchayatnama was not prepared deliberately before sunrise because till then I.O. had no opportunity to have deliberation and consultation as he had reached the place of occurrence directly. The dead bodies were handed over to constable Mohammad Akhtar (P.W.6) at 11.00 a.m. The aforesaid fact further fortifies the finding of learned trial Court that the aforesaid delay was caused due to the fact that FIR was not in existence till then. However, we are of the opinion that, at any rate, the FIR could not have been lodged at 00.15 a.m. on 20.2.1981, rather it was lodged much after the said time and hence the finding of learned trial Court that FIR appears to be anti-timed does not call for any interference by this appellate Court as the evidence on record does not permit to do so. 12. Once the FIR is found to be anti-timed, no implicit reliance can be placed on the veracity of the prosecution story because in that case the possibility of concoction, fabrication, manipulation, consultation, manoeuvring and afterthought in preparing the draft of FIR cannot be ruled out. 13. 12. Once the FIR is found to be anti-timed, no implicit reliance can be placed on the veracity of the prosecution story because in that case the possibility of concoction, fabrication, manipulation, consultation, manoeuvring and afterthought in preparing the draft of FIR cannot be ruled out. 13. Prosecution case is based on direct evidence wherein motive does not play important role but once the motive is alleged by the prosecution, it is bound to prove it like any other incriminating fact to enable the Court to find as to whether or not motive fits in the pattern of the crime. It is tested from four different angles viz. (i) remote motive, if any? (ii) immediate motive, if any? (iii) touchability of motive as to whether it was available to a particular accused? (iv) sufficiency of motive. Meaning thereby that even if there was motive for accused to commit a particular crime, was it sufficient to commit that offence? 14. The motives alleged in this case against accused respondents for committing the crime in question have neither been proved strictly nor they are sufficient for the accused to commit the murders of both the deceased. Existence of a motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always a relevant factor, which will be taken into consideration by the Courts as it will render assistance to the Courts while analyzing the prosecution evidence and determining the guilt of the accused. 15. The dispute and litigation on the issue of uprooting the sweet-potatoes had admittedly already been compromised in between the parties and Padam Singh (P.W.1) was already there on the scene of incident but he was not assaulted at the instance of either of the accused who is said to have turned out accused Omveer from the barat of his nephew a year back. Rampal had in no way insulted Omvir and there was no motive whatsoever assigned against him. The finding of the learned trial Court that at the risk of improvement and after thought, prosecution led evidence to the effect that Omvir had threatened the informant that he would not allow any marriage solemnized in future in his family appears to be correct as no such averment finds place in the FIR. 16. The finding of the learned trial Court that at the risk of improvement and after thought, prosecution led evidence to the effect that Omvir had threatened the informant that he would not allow any marriage solemnized in future in his family appears to be correct as no such averment finds place in the FIR. 16. Padam Singh (P.W.1) and Hari Singh (P.W.2) are closely related to the deceased while Balvir (P.W.3) is said to be an independent witness. All these three witnesses have supported the prosecution case as embedded in the FIR but their evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence. The firearm injury found on the persons of deceased were downward while all these three prosecution witnesses have deposed that both the victims were taller than accused persons in height and the firing was made from lower to upper side. Dr. D.P. Arora (P.W.5) has deposed that in the aforesaid situation, the injuries sustained by the victim should have been upward direction. In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has rightly recorded the findings that medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimony and no interference is called for in the aforesaid finding. The minute details of the inconsistencies in between the medical and ocular testimonies have been discussed in the impugned judgment. 17. Both the deceased were allegedly shot at the samadhi. Satish died at spot while Rampal was alive there even after sustaining firearm injuries. He is said to have been taken to the baithaka which lies at a considerable distance but no trail of blood was found in the way. Absence of trail of blood falsifies the story of the prosecution that Rampal was shot at the samadhi and thereafter he was taken to baithaka. It falsifies the mode, manner and venue of assault alleged by the prosecution which ultimately renders the presence of witnesses at spot wholly unreliable. 18. A quite good number of independent witnesses including the villagers, ladies and children, mare-men, band parties and the persons of the locality were there but none of them have been examined by the prosecution on one pretext or the other as pointed out by the learned trial Court which creates doubt in the prosecution camp. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case, the view of acquittal taken by learned trial Court cannot be said to be “not a possible view”. In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances of the case, the view of acquittal taken by learned trial Court cannot be said to be “not a possible view”. The finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court is neither perverse nor against the weight of evidence on record. Government appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. —————