Kalimullah Khan,J.:- This Government Appeal No.- 899 of 1982 has been filed by State of U.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against accused Hubb Lal, Surajmal, Sugriv and Pitambar sons of Lakhmi Singh challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.12.1981 whereby all the four respondents have been acquitted. 2. The impugned judgment and order aforesaid has been challenged on the ground that it is bad in law as well as on facts and as such is liable to be set aside; that F.I.R. is prompt and non-recovery of blood at spot makes no difference in the facts and circumstances of the case because the disappearance of the blood from the field is quite natural when large number of persons had been there at the time and after the occurrence, therefore, non-explanation of the injuries of accused persons would not go to disprove the prosecution case. 3. The prosecution case is that parties are collateral related to each other. Accused Hubb Lal, Surajmal, Pitambar and Sugriv, Babu Lal ( deceased) and witnesses Rajjan and Chhito belong to one family and are co-tenant in the agricultural property divided into three Khatas, namely, Khata No.- 290-1, 290-2 and 290-3. It appears that Khata No.-290-1 came in possession of Chhito and Rajjan, Khata No.-290-2 in possession of Babu Lal and Khata No.- 290-3 in possession of accused persons. But they wanted also to take forcibly the possession of Khata No.-290-1 belonging to Rajjan and Chhito. 4. It appears from the written report by the first informant that on 17.12.1980 at about 09:30 A.M. all the four accused started ploughing the field of Rajjan and Chhito who objected and asked them to desist from doing so. Upon this accused hurled and abuses and threatened them with dire consequences in case they do not go away. Babu Lal son of Dori Lal and Om Prakash son of informant Dal Chandra intervened and requested the accused persons not to plough the field and tried to pacify the dispute whereupon accused Hubb Lal fired with the licensee gun of Pitambar and accused Pitambar wielding Farsa and accused Surajmal and Sugriv wielding lathi attacked on them. Babu Lal son of Dori Lal and Om Prakash son of informant Dal Chandra intervened and requested the accused persons not to plough the field and tried to pacify the dispute whereupon accused Hubb Lal fired with the licensee gun of Pitambar and accused Pitambar wielding Farsa and accused Surajmal and Sugriv wielding lathi attacked on them. The assailant accused chased them towards the village, who were surrounded by them near the vacant field of Bhup Singh son of Ghansyam Singh exhorting to kill them, Pitambar with Surajmal started assaulting Om Prakash with Farsa and lathi whereas Hubb Lal fired from the gun at Babu Lal who sustained injury in his stomach and immediately fell down. Hubb Lal then opened second fire on the informant Dal Chandra who, however, did not sustain any injury. Puran son of Dori Lal, Balbir son of Resham Lal and other persons of village reached there and they challenged the accused persons whereupon all the accused ran away towards Jharota. Injured Babu Lal died on spot whereas Om Prakash sustained injuries in his head and hands etc. The first informant Dal Chandra went to police station along with Om Prakash and lodged the F.I.R. leaving the dead body of Babu Lal at spot. 5. On the basis of aforesaid written report ( Exhibit Ka-1), check report was drawn and case was registered in the General Diary on 17.12.1980 at 11:45 A.M., Police Station- Baldeo, District- Mathura which lies at the distance of three miles from the place of the incident. 6. Investigation followed. After preparing the inquest report, the dead body was sent to mortuary where it was subjected to postmortem examination on 18.12.1980 at 11:30 A.M. Following ante-mortem injuries were found at the body of Babu Lal, hereinafter called the 'deceased':- Ante Mortem Injuries 1. G.S. wound of entry 3cm x 3cm x abdominal cavity deep, with inverted margins ( scorching and tatooing present around the wound) on the front of right sides, abdomen 1cm below umblicus. 2. G.S. sound of exit, 1.5cm x 1.5cm x abdominal cavity deep in circle, with everted margins on back of right side abdomen, 2cm from mid line at about the level of 6 lumber vation connecting with injury no.1. 3. G.S. wound of exit 1.5cm x 1.5cm x muscle deep on right buttock, upper part with everted margins connecting injury no. 1. 4. 3. G.S. wound of exit 1.5cm x 1.5cm x muscle deep on right buttock, upper part with everted margins connecting injury no. 1. 4. G.S. wound of exit 1.5cm x 1.5cm x abdominal cavity deep, on back of right side abdomen 4 cm apart from injury no. 2 with everted margins, connecting injury no. 1. During the course of investigation injured Om Prakash was also examined on 17.12.1980 at 1:15 P.M. Following injuries were found at his persons:- 1. Lacerated wound 6cm x 1cm x bone deep on left side scalp 8.5cm above external ear upper border ( Lt.) bleeding present. 2. Abrasion 0.75cm x 0.75cm on right thumb back just at its base. 3. Abrasion 1:00cm x 0.75cm on right hand thumb, back 2.5cm below injury no. 2. 4. Contusion 17cm x 2.5cm right side back, upper half verticular direction colour is bright red. 5. Contusion 2.5cm x 2.5cm on back at lower third just above back bone. Horizontal in direction. Colour is bright red. All injuries were reported to be simple in nature. In jury number ( 1), ( 4) and ( 5) were caused by blunt object & No. ( 2) & ( 3) by friction against rough surface. Duration of the injuries was also reported to be fresh. 7. There are three Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation one after other in four parts. They interrogated the prosecution witnesses; collected the evidence; prepared the site plan and submitted charge-sheet against all the four accused. 8. The case was committed to the court of Sessions. The court framed charge against all the four accused Hubb Lal, Surajmal, Pitambar and Sugriv under Section 302 /34 I.P.C., 307/34 I.P.C. and 323/34 I.P.C. whereas accused Hubb Lal was charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. simpliciter as well as under Section 307 I.P.C. All of them denied the charge and claimed to be trial. 9. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all. 9. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all. Out of whom Dal Chandra ( P.W.-1) is the first informant who proved the written report and deposed on facts as embedded in the F.I.R. His statement is fully corroborated by the F.I.R. Rajjan Singh ( P.W.-2) is a witness of fact who deposed on facts that accused persons were ploughing forcibly his field and on being protested, accused Hubb Lal fired gunshot causing death of Babu Lal and he further fired on informant Dal Chandra who, however, did not sustain any injury while rest of the accused Sugriv and Surajmal armed with lathi and Pitambar armed with Farsa assaulted Om Prakash who sustained injuries though P.W.-2 aforesaid is not an injured witness. However, Om Prakash ( P.W.-3) the injured witness is said to have been assaulted with lathi and Farsa by accused Sugriv, Suarajmal and Pitambar. He has deposed the same and stated that Hubb Lal has committed the murder of Babu Lal by firing from his gun who also fired his gun at Dal Chandra who escaped any injury. Dalbir Singh ( P.W.-4) has deposed that on hearing the retort of firearm. He came at place of occurrence and saw the accused persons running empty handed after the incident. The body of the deceased Babu Lal was lying there in the field of Bhup Singh and Om Prakash in an injured condition. 10. Rest of the prosecution witnesses are formal witnesses. Dr. Ghyanshyam Singh ( P.W.-5) has proved the injury report of Om Prakash as Exhibit Ka-2. Sri Laxmi Narian Sharma ( P.W.-6) the head constable proved the check report as Exhibit Ka-3 as well as the G.D. entry regarding registration of the case as Exhibit Ka-4. He further deposed that special report was sent by him on 17.12.1980 at 14:35 hours through constable No. 173 Ranvir Singh who after making delivery of the said special report returned to police station at 21:10 hours. 11. Sri R.P.S. Sirohi ( P.W.-7), S.I. Sri Brij Pal Singh ( P.W.-8) and Sri Harpal Singh Solanki ( P.W.-11) are the Investigating Officer. They have proved the investigation. 11. Sri R.P.S. Sirohi ( P.W.-7), S.I. Sri Brij Pal Singh ( P.W.-8) and Sri Harpal Singh Solanki ( P.W.-11) are the Investigating Officer. They have proved the investigation. Constable No. 39 Yogendra Singh ( P.W.-9) has deposed that after preparation of inquest report and other papers in his presence I.O. Sri R.P.S. Sirohi handed over the dead body of the deceased in a sealed cover to him and constable Daryav Singh which was taken by them to the mortuary at Mathura where the postmortem examination was was conducted in the district hospital after identification of the body of the deceased. Dr. K.S. Sarbhai ( P.W.-10) is a witness who conducted the postmortem examination report on the body of deceased and has proved autopsy as Exhibit Ka-12. 12. Accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution evidence and attributed their false implication in this case. Accused Hubb Lal stated that one Hargulli had fired with country made pistol of Pitambar which hit Babu Lal ( deceased) because Pitambar was running and Babu Lal was chasing him and Hargulli had fired from their front side. 13. Pitambar accused stated that he and his brother Surajmal had gone to field on the day of incident to sow seeds which they had taken with them and from much before the incident they were cultivating the said land. Chhito, Rajjan, Dalvir, Babu etc. attacked them. After sustaining injury, he ran away towards Jharota field. Hargulli, Om Prakash and Puran had also attacked them. Hargulli had fired upon him but it did not hit him. Accused were called upon to enter into their defence. They examined Sugriv Singh, Lekhpal, village- Birona, P.S.- Baldeo, Distict- Mathura as D.W.-1. Radha Ballabh Mishra, Fire Arms Repairer as D.W.-2. Dr. Y. K. Adholiya Medical Officer, District Jail Mathura as D.W.-3 and Ram Kishan Das Garg, Revenue Record Keeper, Collectry Mathura as P.W.-4. 14. Apart from aforesaid oral evidence, accused persons also filed a number of documentary evidence as detailed in the trial court judgment. 15. The crux of evidence of Sugriv Singh, Lekhpal is that the field which was being cultivated by accused on the day of incident, was already in their possession although the entries in the revenue records were in favour of Rajjan and Chhito. Radha Ballabh Mishra, Fire Arms Repairer ( D.W.-2) has deposed that Pitambar has deposited his licensee gun no. The crux of evidence of Sugriv Singh, Lekhpal is that the field which was being cultivated by accused on the day of incident, was already in their possession although the entries in the revenue records were in favour of Rajjan and Chhito. Radha Ballabh Mishra, Fire Arms Repairer ( D.W.-2) has deposed that Pitambar has deposited his licensee gun no. 34979, license no. 3626, 12 bore in his shop on 16.12.1980 at 11:25 A.M. for repairing. The entry in that concerned register was made by him at serial No. 829 in his own handwriting and signature; that after the said gun was repaired, was returned to Pitambar on 17.12.1980 at 10:00 A.M. and proved the receipt issued for the said purpose as Exhibit Kha-2. However, he further deposed that Sri R.P.S. Sirohi, I. O. had forcibly took him his registers and the receipt concerning entries of repairs of arms with him and had got the aforesaid entry manipulated at the risk of overwriting. 16. Dr. Y.K. Adholiya, Medical Officer, District Jail Mathura ( D.W.-3) deposed that he was posted on the aforesaid post in District Jail Mathura on 21.12.1980 and identified that accused Pitambar and Surajmal who were present in court at the time of his evidence, were lodged in jail on 21.12.1980; that he had medically examined both of them and entered their injuries in the Jail Injury Register. The following injuries were found by him on the body of Surajmal accused:- 1. Infected incised, mid right side scalp 2" x ¼" bone deep. The wound is infected at the base. 2. Incised wound mid front of scalp 1" x ½" bone deep with infection at the base. 3. Aberrated contusion D.B. In colour over post. Aspect of right thumb 1" x ½". 4. Aberrated D.B. Contusion post aspect Rt. fore in the middle ¾" x ¼". 5. D.B. contusion lower post. Aspect Lt. fore arm ½" x ½". 17. Injury No.- 1and 2 reported by him to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon were kept under observation. He advised x-ray of scalp, AP and Lat. view Injury no. 3, 4 and 5 were reported to be caused by a blunt object and simple in nature. Duration of about four days old. 18. He further deposed that he did not examine the injury of Pitambar in detail as his medical examination has already been conducted on 20.12.1980. He advised x-ray of scalp, AP and Lat. view Injury no. 3, 4 and 5 were reported to be caused by a blunt object and simple in nature. Duration of about four days old. 18. He further deposed that he did not examine the injury of Pitambar in detail as his medical examination has already been conducted on 20.12.1980. However, he has mentioned his injuries which had already been medically taken care for. He produced both the original entries in the medicology register maintained in the jail and proved them as Exhibit Kha-4 and Kha-5 respectively. 19. Sri Ram Kishan Das Garg, the Revenue Record Keeper, Collectry Mathura deposed that the file of case No. 421 of 1970 Padam Singh vs. Pyare Lal and others under Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act was decided on 11.11.1970 by S.D.M. Sudabad, District- Mathura. The file of the aforesaid case was produced by him in the Court in pursuance of the order passed by learned trial court. 20. The learned court of Sessions, on appraisal of evidence and record as well as oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding of acquittal on following grounds:- I. That no independent witness has been produced to prove the prosecution case; II. That only interested, related and inimical witnesses have been produced by prosecution; III. That motive alleged is not sufficient rather it could have been reason of false implication of accused; IV. That the evidence of first informant ( P.W.-1) Dal Chandra does not inspire confidence; V. That place of incident is not proved for absence of blood at alleged spot; VI. That even as per the saying of prosecution witnesses, none of the accused had brought Gun, Farsa, Lathi etc. with them when they were ploughing the field in their presence and; VII. That after incident when they ran away, they were empty handed. Even then none of the weapons were recovered from the field; VIII. That the medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimony inasmuch as no Farsa injury was found on the persons of Om Prakash; IX. That the F.I.R. is ante timed; X. That the field which is said to be ploughed by accused was already in their possession and, therefore, they were not the aggressor and; XI. That the medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimony inasmuch as no Farsa injury was found on the persons of Om Prakash; IX. That the F.I.R. is ante timed; X. That the field which is said to be ploughed by accused was already in their possession and, therefore, they were not the aggressor and; XI. That accused Surajmal, Pitambar have sustained injury including incised wound on their person touching the vital part of the body i.e. the sculp but no explanation has been given by prosecution as to how they received the injuries in the incident. 21. Heard Sri D.I. Faridi learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vinay Kumar assisted by Sri P.K. Mishra learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 22. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that non-recovery of blood from the ploughed field of the place of the occurrence where hundreds of people were collected after the incident and earth would have soaked the blood, it may not be available, is not fatal to the prosecution in these circumstances. He submitted that the medical evidence in the instant case is consistent with the ocular testimony; that since the blade of Farsa did not hit Om Prakash rather struck the lathi portion or handle hit, therefore, absence of injury by Farsa on Om Prakash is also not fatal and it cannot be said that no blow to Om Prakash was given by the weapon. 23. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the place of incident; the mode and manner of assault; the possession of Rajjan and Chhito on the disputed land. Prosecution has further failed to explain overwriting and subsequent insertions of the entries of date, time of preparation and completion of inquest report etc. including the crime number and sections of the offence therein; and the absence of Farsa injury on the person of Om Prakash. He submitted that injuries sustained by accused Pitambar and Surajmal have not been explained at all which entitles accused to be acquitted. He has lastly submitted that after making detailed appraisal of evidence, the trial court has recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of accused by taking a view which is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the Government appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. In State of Rajasthan Vs. He has lastly submitted that after making detailed appraisal of evidence, the trial court has recorded a finding of acquittal in favour of accused by taking a view which is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the Government appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram, ( 2012) 1 SCC 602 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. There is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it, well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. 25. The above distinction carved out by the Supreme Court, therefore, has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience. There is no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If, upon scrutiny, the appellate court finds that the lower court's decision is based on erroneous views and against the settled position of law then the said order of acquittal should be set aside. 26. On a perusal of the judgment impugned in the light of evidence on record and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order as it is an appropriate judgment in the facts and circumstances of the case where prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the incident and has not come with clean hands. Two accused person sustained injuries in the same incident. Two accused person sustained injuries in the same incident. As per the evidence of Medical Officer District Jail Mathura, two incised wounds were found inflicted upon the head of Surajmal, apart from a number of other injuries sustained by him. Other accused Pitambar has also sustained injury and he was medically taken care of them in the jail hospital. It may be noted that none of the prosecution witnesses claiming themselves to be present on the spot were able to explain as to how and under which circumstances these two accused sustained the injuries in the incident. The A.G.A., on query being made could not give any satisfactory explanation of injuries sustained by accused Surajmal and Pitambar in the same incident. Non-explanation of injuries of the accused in the incident is fatal to prosecution and as to who was the aggressor that by itself is sufficient to discard the prosecution story and to record a finding of acquittal. 27. A very striking feature in this case is that none of the prosecution witness has stated that either of the accused had gone with Gun, Farsa and Lathi to the field in question to plough the same. The prosecution evidence on record is that accused were running away from the place of occurrence after the incident and none of them was having any weapon in their hand. If at all there was any truth into allegation made by the prosecution, then, in the circumstances, it is the duty of prosecution to explain as to what happened to the weapons alleged to have been used by accused during the said incident. Non discharge of this pious duty by prosecution entails a finding of acquittal of accused for meeting the ends of justice and preventing its miscarriage. 28. The evidence of Lekhpal ( D.W.-1) has not been challenged by prosecution when he says that the agricultural field in question was already in possession of accused and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly come to a conclusion that there is no evidence on record to say that accused were aggressor and the defence story appears to be more probable that Hargully fired with a country made pistol which hit Babu Lal who succumbed to his injuries and accused exercised their right of private defence with lathies. 29. 29. It is settled principle of law that if view taken by trial court is a reasonable and possible one then High Court may not set it aside and substitute it by its own view in its place merely because its view is also possible on the facts of case. We may add that presumption of innocence of an accused is a cordial principle of criminal jurisprudence. Finding of acquittal by the trial court, in this case, further strengthens the presumption of the accused, in this regard unless order of acquittal is perverse, totally against weight of evidence and rendered in complete breach of settled principles underlying criminal jurisprudence. Crime may be heinous, morally repulsive or extremely shocking, but accused cannot be convicted on moral considerations. 30. Learned trial court has also rightly disbelieved the witnesses of facts in view of the inconsistency in between medical evidence and ocular testimony pointed out above. Investigation is not fair in this case as is apparent from the perusal of the evidence of Radha Ballabh Mishra ( D.W.-2). His evidence discussed by learned trial court in detail leaves no room for giving second thought over the issue. The conduct of I.O. concerned appears to be biased and he was interested in fastening the guilty on the head of accused by hook or by crook and for that purpose he got the record manipulated as is evident from the evidence of aforesaid witness D.W.-2. It does not transpire that he is telling a lie. The learned trial court has found that F.I.R. is incorrect based on false allegation and is ante timed for the reason that it appears to have been prepared after the preparation of the inquest report. The overwriting and subsequent insertions of the relevant entries regarding time of its preparation and completion of inquest report, crime number and sections of the offences, would otherwise not have been made. 31. In spite of independent witness available on spot as mentioned in the F.I.R. only the interested witnesses have been examined in this case and strict judicial scrutiny of their depositions renders their evidence unreliable. Therefore, the view taken by learned trial court for recording a finding of acquittal of accused in the facts and circumstances of the case is quite possible and this Court need no interfere. 32. For all the reasons stated above, the Government Appeal is dismissed.