(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.) We have heard Sri Chandrajeet Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant-State, Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for accused-respondent no.1 and perused the appeal paper-book. The instant government appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.12.1993 passed by learned I - Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No.265 of 1987, arising out of Crime No.115 of 1987, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri. Before we proceed with the matter, it would be appropriate to deal with the application filed under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, along with affidavit for condonation of delay in preferring the instant government appeal. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application. We find the reasons given in the delay condonation application, reasonable and sufficient. Accordingly, delay in filing the instant government appeal is condoned. As per report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, dated 30.01.2014 it transpires that the two accused persons namely Risal Singh and Fauran Singh have died during pendency of the instant appeal. Therefore, the appeal in their respective cases stands abated. Now the only surviving accused in this appeal is Damodar Singh. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case as discernible from certified copy of the impugned judgment are that Kayam Singh, the complainant lodged a written report at Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri, 22.09.1982 at 1:30 a.m. with the allegations that election for the post of Gram Pradhan in Gram Panchayat, Hoshiyar was held sometime ago. Atiraj Singh, resident of complainant's village and Chintamani, resident of Nagla Kinnar were among others candidates in the election of Gram Pradhan. The complainant supported candidature of Chintamani in the said election, due to which Atiraj Singh felt annoyance with him. Chintamani was defeated in the said election and he filed a petition in the court of S.D.M. which was fixed for hearing on 22.09.1982. On 21.09.1982 at about 6:30 p.m., the complainant was lying at the door of his house after taking meals, when Atiraj Singh, Damodar Singh, Risal Singh and Fauran Singh, residents of his village armed with guns and countrymade pistols came over there. They abused him and said that since he was helping Chintamani in the election of Gram Pradhan, therefore, they will teach him a lesson. They abused him and said that since he was helping Chintamani in the election of Gram Pradhan, therefore, they will teach him a lesson. The informant said that he was not helping anybody whereupon they opened fire with intent to kill him which hit him on his right shoulder. He raised alarm whereupon a number of persons arrived at the spot and the accused persons ran away from the scene of occurrence. On the basis of the aforesaid report, first information report was registered under Section 307 I.P.C., at Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri and investigation followed. The injured was sent to the District Hospital for medical examination on 22.09.1982 who was medically examined the same day at 8:20 a.m. and following injury was found on his person: "Gun shot wound of entry 1 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on front of right shoulder, 3 cm below top of shoulder. Margins inverted and lacerated. No blackening and tattooing were seen. Wound bleeding on probing. Clotted blood present around wound. Injury kept under observation. Advised x-ray. Injury was caused by firearm and was fresh in nature." After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a final report whereupon the informant filed a protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which was also dismissed on 29.05.1985. The informant thereafter preferred criminal revision no.138 of 1985 against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereupon the matter was remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for afresh consideration with the direction to issue process against the accused persons. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal shows that Criminal Revision No.1491 of 1986 was preferred by Atiraj Singh before this Court which was dismissed on 19.01.1987. Later on the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The accused persons were heard on the point of charge. The charge under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed against all the accused persons which was explained and read over to them who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In turn the prosecution examined four witnesses namely Manohar Singh PW-1, Dharam Pal PW-2, Dr. M.C. Gulecha PW-3 and Ummed Singh PW-4. It is relevant to mention that after lodging of the first information report, informant Kayam Singh was murdered within a year of the alleged incident, therefore, he was not examined before the trial court. In turn the prosecution examined four witnesses namely Manohar Singh PW-1, Dharam Pal PW-2, Dr. M.C. Gulecha PW-3 and Ummed Singh PW-4. It is relevant to mention that after lodging of the first information report, informant Kayam Singh was murdered within a year of the alleged incident, therefore, he was not examined before the trial court. Manohar Singh PW-1 and Dharam Pal PW-2 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they termed their implication false. The accused persons wished to adduce evidence on their part and police personnel were summoned but defence witnesses so summoned did not turn up despite hectic effort made by the trial court. It is appropriate to take note of the fact that as per ocular testimony of Manohar Singh PW-1 and Dharam Pal Singh PW-2, they have supported the prosecution version as contained in the first information report. Both the witnesses further deposed that the aforesaid accused persons committed murder of Kayam Singh after one year. In so far as motive part of the incident is concerned, the above two witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution version on point of motive. Ummed Singh PW-4 is said to be the scribe of the first information report. On the day of incident Kayam Singh was in village Ghiror who after writing the written report on the dictation of Kayam Singh had gone to the Police Station concerned. So far as motive part is concerned, we may observe that the informant had supported candidature of Chintamani for election of Gram Pradhan, who was defeated in the said election and Atiraj Singh was declared elected. Therefore, motive as suggested by the prosecution cannot be said to be working as prominent force behind commission of the crime. As per the first information report, a number of persons/villagers arrived at the scene of occurrence after alarm was raised by the injured when incident took place but not a single independent witness among them was produced by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Dharam Pal, PW-2 is the fast friend of Manohar Singh PW-1, therefore, his testimony is to be scrutinized carefully by us. Dharam Pal, PW-2 is the fast friend of Manohar Singh PW-1, therefore, his testimony is to be scrutinized carefully by us. In so far as the fact of lodging of the first information report is concerned, in that context, it is reflected that Ummed Singh PW-4 had come to the village (of complainant) around mid night along with a tractor and Kayam Singh went to the Police Station concerned with this tractor. As per his testimony, report was written by Ummed Singh at the house of Kayam Singh but testimony forthcoming through Ummed Singh, PW-4 reveals that on the day of the incident, he was in village Ghiror where Kayam Singh had come all along and got his report prepared. Ummed Singh PW-4, in his testimony, has deposed that Kayam Singh had come to him at 1:00 a.m. he was alone and he had come on bicycle and the injured travelled on bicycle for 10 kilometers. Kayam Singh stayed with him for about half an hour and then he went to the Police Station. Thus, on the point of writing of the first information report, the very place is found to be different. On the one hand it is suggested that the first information report was written at the house of the informant; on the other hand the first information report is said to have been written at village Ghiror where Ummed Singh PW-4 was residing. Therefore, testimony of prosecution witnesses namely Manohar Singh, PW-1 and Ummed Singh, PW-4 is contradictory on this point. In so far as actual incident is concerned, this much can be said that it is a clear cut case where four persons armed with firearms have opened fire upon one person but only one gun shot wound was found on the person of the injured on his right shoulder. This by itself cannot be taken to be the outcome of firing by four persons and cannot be accepted as reasonable one under facts and circumstances of the case. Injury caused to the deceased by itself cannot be said to be serious one, admittedly being caused around 6:30 p.m. whereas report has been lodged at 1:30 a.m. at Police Station Ghiror i.e. after lapse of almost 7 hours. This is surprising that the injured travelled on bicycle for 10 kilometers after the incident had occurred. Injury caused to the deceased by itself cannot be said to be serious one, admittedly being caused around 6:30 p.m. whereas report has been lodged at 1:30 a.m. at Police Station Ghiror i.e. after lapse of almost 7 hours. This is surprising that the injured travelled on bicycle for 10 kilometers after the incident had occurred. Had the accused persons actually intended to kill the injured, they had ample opportunity to kill him. This fact actually generates doubt on the very happening of the incident in the manner stated by the prosecution. From statement of Dharam Pal, PW-2 it also comes out that father of Kayam Singh harboured dacoits although no view need to be expressed on this point but suggestion of the defence that possibility of injury being caused in the night cannot be denied and overlooked while scrutinizing facts, evidence and circumstances of this case. We further notice that the Investigating Officer was not examined before the trial court, which has shaken the prosecution case. Cumulative approach while analyzing the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence leads us to only one conclusion that the prosecution was not able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Possibility of incident as narrated and suggested by the prosecution looses it credibility when we notice the very manner of the incident as alleged by the prosecution. All the aforesaid facts and circumstances have been considered by the trial court and the trial court has recorded just and consistent finding while acquitting the aforesaid accused persons under Section 307 I.P.C. We, therefore, find that the presumption of innocence runs in favour of an accused person right from the stage when the trial commences and the same continues up to the appellate stage. These findings are fortified by the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court, which are well grounded on material on record. This aspect also finds support from explicit view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal and others Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 1940 . We may sum up that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is based on material available on record, therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant government appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal is, thus, refused. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 1940 . We may sum up that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is based on material available on record, therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant government appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal is, thus, refused. Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned.