JUDGMENT The instant appeal filed by the State under Section 3 78 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 16th October, 2014, whereby in Sessions Trial No. 309 of 2007, the sole respondent was acquitted from the charges framed against him. 2. Heard learned AGA and perused the lower court record. 3. Leaned AGA in support of the application for leave to appeal submits that impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, ocular version of the occurrence is corroborated by medical evidence. The impugned judgment is illegal and perverse being against the weight of the material available on the record and law. 4. Briefly stated that in the intervening night of 21/22nd November, 2006, police party of P.S. Mohammadpur Khala led by S.I. Sunil Kumar Singh was on patrol duty, on the basis of information received, they reached near house of the present applicant, who was identified in the light of the torch. Seeing the police party, the accused with the intention to commit murder, fired on the police party and C.P. Mahesh Pal sustained gun shot wound and other injuries. In spite of chase, the accused ran away. The incident took place at about 12.40 a.m. on that date. Subsequently, on 25th November, 2006 at about 6.05 p.m. he was arrested and one country made pistol with one live cartridge and one empty cartridge were recovered from his possession. Two separate FIRs were lodged and accused were charge-sheeted. 5. After committal of the case, the respondent was charged under Sections 307, 353, 504 IPC in S.T. No. 309 of 2007 and in S.T. No. 308 of 2007, he was charged under Section 3 /25 Arms Act which he denied and claimed to be tried. Both the Sessions Trials were tried together. On behalf of prosecution besides documentary evience as members of police party, S.I. S.K. Singh (P.W.-1), injured Constable Mahesh Pal (P.W.-2), Bharat Singh (P.W.-3) were examined. Dr. Abhai Goel (P.W.-4) proved the injury report. Rests witnesses were police personnel. The defence case was of denial. 6. Learned trial Judge disbelieved ocular testimony and acquitted the respondent. He disbelieved the fact of recovery. On the basis of not proving recovery of weapon and cartridges due to production of case property in a bundle not carrying any crime number and in absence of their proper identification. Rests witnesses were police personnel. The defence case was of denial. 6. Learned trial Judge disbelieved ocular testimony and acquitted the respondent. He disbelieved the fact of recovery. On the basis of not proving recovery of weapon and cartridges due to production of case property in a bundle not carrying any crime number and in absence of their proper identification. In the other case, prosecution evidence was disbelieved on account of the fact that injuries were received on the face whereas his head was X-rayed and two pellets were recovered from there. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that members of the police party in reference to the police encounter could not give the description of the boundaries of the place of occurrence. The finding recorded by the learned trial Judge about the seat of injury and radiological finding about the place of pellets is also substantiated from the record. We also find that after the occurrence, the injured constable continued to discharge his duties. 8. We find reasons assigned to disbelieve the recovery are also substantiated from the record. The impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence and it suffers with no infirmity. The view taken by the learned trial Judge is also a possible view, hence leave to appeal is declined. The instant appeal is dismissed in limine.