JUDGMENT : Hon. Servesh Kumar Gupta, J (Oral) Having heard Mr. A. S. Gill, Deputy Advocate General for State of Uttarakhand / appellant, 29 days’ delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application No. 1804 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. Leave to Government Appeal No. 223 of 2015 2. For hearing on the question of granting leave to appeal, we have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2012 absolving the accused Padmi Ram from the charges under Section 302, 201 IPC. The said trial pertains to Revenue Police Patwari Circle of Tehsil Chamoli, Crime No. 02 of 2012. 3. Shorn off the unnecessary details, theme of the prosecution story is that deceased Mohan Lal left his village Ghuni for jungle along with accused Padmi Ram to fetch the grass for cattle. He did not return to the house either in the evening or on next day i.e. on 12.05.2012 and further on 13.05.2012. On 14.05.2012, they got information through the maternal uncle Rajesh Lal, residing in quite another village, at 12.00 noon of the day that accused had informed him about missing of deceased since 12.00 noon on 13.05.2012. The informant along with other villagers including accused Padmi Ram went in the jungle to search the deceased. After a massive hunt, they all were persuaded to go to nearby pool filled with spring of water and there, dead body of Mohan Lal was found, so the suspicion was expressed towards complicity of accused Padmi Ram, and thus, first information report was lodged on 15.05.2012 by his real brother Dinesh Lal. Chargesheet was submitted against him and after levelling the charges prosecution witnesses were produced. Trial culminated into acquittal whereagainst State has come up in this appeal. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General has strived to show the evidence available against the accused, which is, firstly that deceased was last seen in the company of accused by the informant Dinesh Lal at the time of leaving the village for jungle to collect the grass for cattle. Secondly, there was some animosity persisting between the accused and deceased, so this could have drived the culprit to commit the incident. Thirdly, the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused. 5. Secondly, there was some animosity persisting between the accused and deceased, so this could have drived the culprit to commit the incident. Thirdly, the dead body was recovered at the instance of accused. 5. We have perused the impugned judgment and found that all these three evidences, as suggested by the learned Deputy Advocate General, have no substance at all for the following reasons. 6. As far as the last seen evidence of his brother Dinesh Lal is concerned, the evidence is otherwise on record, because it has been admitted by Sri Dinesh Lal as well as wife of the deceased Smt. Rukma Devi, who has been examined as PW-2 that Dinesh Lal and she along with her husband reside in separate hamlets. She informed Dinesh Lal that his brother has left in the company of accused Padmi Lal to the Jungle since morning. So, the last seen evidence, as has been deposed by Dinesh Lal, is secondary in nature on this score. Even if, the version of deceased’s wife is accepted for a moment that her husband left with the accused on 11.05.2012, it has not specifically been deposed that within her sight, deceased left the hamlet or his home. 7. As regards to the second score of persisting animosity between the deceased and accused, learned Trial Judge has dealt such factor in the judgment. The inimical terms have been highlighted in the background of the evil eye, which the accused did have to grab the property of the maternal grandfather of deceased because his maternal grandfather did not have any male child. This way, it can be inferred that if maternal grandfather of the deceased did not have any male child then any immovable property possessed by him would be inherited to the mother of the deceased and from the mother of the deceased, it would be inherited to the deceased himself as well as his real brother Dinesh Lal. In no circumstance or under any law, the property of the maternal grand father of the deceased would be inherited by the accused so the ground of nurturing the animosity on this count is baseless. 8. Thirdly, as regards to the recovery of dead body is concerned, no such factum was indicated in the First Information Report while it was lodged after the recovery of such body. 8. Thirdly, as regards to the recovery of dead body is concerned, no such factum was indicated in the First Information Report while it was lodged after the recovery of such body. Even if, accepting the established law in this regard that the FIR is not repository of each and every fact, but the significant factor, which is indicating the complicity of the accused, should find place in the First Information Report. That apart, DW1 Suresh Singh has been examined. He has stated that when Mohan Lal was missing, at that time, Padmi Ram was present in the village itself. Besides, there are several discrepancies as well as incongruities, as indicated in the post mortem report and proved by Dr. Satish Kumar (PW7), which evinced the exoneration of accused from the charges and such inconsistencies have well been discussed in Para-42 of the impugned judgment. 9. In view of what has been set forth above, we feel that no useful purpose would be served by granting the special leave to appeal. Thus, such leave is hereby refused and as a consequence, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed.