JUDGMENT : This Government Appeal, preferred under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment & order dated 22.12.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 1996, whereby the said Court has acquitted the accused/respondents Satish and Rampal Singh from the charge of offences punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Chandrapal, P.W. 2, lodged the First Information Report on 16.08.1994 at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar stating therein that one Satish, resident of the same village, shot fire on his brother-in-law, namely, Sadhuram, due to which his brother-in-law got injured. It is stated in the F.I.R. that on previous day i.e. on 15.08.1994, being Sunday, at around 08:00 a.m., his father-in-law, namely, Phullaram was standing outside his house. Banarasi, his son Satish, Peeru Singh, and his nephew Rampal Singh together came there and, by shouting that they will do away Phulla’s life, Banarasi assaulted Phullaram by Lathi, Satish with iron rod, Rampal with handle of Phawra and Satish with the intention to kill him shot fire from the country made pistol on him; but, the said firearm did not hit Phullaram; instead, it hit on Banarasi. Thereafter, Smt. Kamla, sister of Phullaram, came there to save Phullaram. Peeru Singh then assaulted her by Lathi. Thereafter, mother-in-law of the complainant, namely, Baldei, by throwing bricks & stones from the roof, tried to save Satish and others. This incident was witnessed by Kalu Ram, Kamla, Baldei etc. Phullaram & Kamla were got medically examined at the Government Hospital, Haridwar. Keeping in view the critical condition of Phullaram, doctors of the Government Hospital, Haridwar referred him to the Medical College, Meerut. He tried to lodge the F.I.R. at Police Station Pathri; but, the police personnel did not lodge the F.I.R. Then he wrote to S.S.P. and only thereafter F.I.R. was lodged. On the basis of said report, Chik report was prepared and Case Crime no. 82A of 1994 was registered in respect of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. against Banarasi, Satish, Rampal & Peeru Singh. Investigation was taken up by S.I. Bhaiyalal, who interrogated the witnesses and started investigation. On the basis of said report, Chik report was prepared and Case Crime no. 82A of 1994 was registered in respect of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. against Banarasi, Satish, Rampal & Peeru Singh. Investigation was taken up by S.I. Bhaiyalal, who interrogated the witnesses and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the said Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the accused persons for their trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, on receipt of the chargesheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial on 14.08.1996. After hearing the parties on 21.11.1997, learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar framed charge of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Sessions Trial was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. IIIrd, Haridwar for its hearing and disposal. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Phulla (injured), P.W. 2 Chandrapal (complainant), P.W.3 Kala, P.W.4 Kaluram. On the application moved on behalf of the prosecution, Smt. Baldei was examined as C.W.-1. During trial, accused persons, namely, Banarasi and Peeru Singh got expired and the trial, in respect of them, got abated. Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged that the evidence adduced against them are false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, opined that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, opined that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C. against the accused persons was not made out, and the accused persons were entitled for acquittal. With this finding, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons Satish & Rampal from the charge leveled against them. Aggrieved by the judgment & order dated 22.12.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 1996, this appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal before this Court. Thereafter, leave to appeal was granted and appeal was admitted and lower court record was summoned. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment & order dated 22.12.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 1996, this appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal before this Court. Thereafter, leave to appeal was granted and appeal was admitted and lower court record was summoned. 5. P.W.1, Phullaram, has stated on oath that the incident is of around one year ago i.e. of 15th August, at around 08:00 a.m., when he was at his home, Banarasi, Satish, Rampal and Peeru came near to his house. Banarasi and Peeru were armed with Lathi, Rampal was armed with Phawra, Satish was armed with an iron rod. Four of them asked him to leave their land; otherwise, they will do away his life. Phullaram told them that he has already left their land. At this, Banarasi assaulted him by Lathi on his hand, Satish assaulted him by iron rod, Rampal assaulted him by the handle of Phawra on his head, due to which he sustained several injuries. When his sister, namely, Kamla came there to save him, Peeru also assaulted her. Satish, with the intention to kill him, shot fire from the country made pistol on him; but, the said firearm did not hit Phullaram; instead, it hit Banarasi, and Kalu, Kamla and other persons came there. Since Banarasi received firearm injury, the accused persons took Banarasi with them and fled away. He also stated that, thereafter, the accused persons fled away from the spot. This incident was witnessed by Kalu Ram, Kamla, Baldei etc. He also stated that he and Kamla were got medically examined at the Government Hospital, Haridwar. On the next day, doctor referred him to the Medical College, Meerut. He remained admitted in a hospital at Merrut for 21-22 days due to those injuries. 6. P.W. 2 Chandrapal, in his testimony, has stated that, on 14.08.1994, when he was at his home, he came to learn that his father-in-law & brother-in-law, namely, Sadhuram were assaulted in the village by some persons. Thereafter, he went to the village. By that time, his father-in-law Phullaram & brother-in-law Sadhuram were taken to the Government Hospital, Haridwar for treatment. He was informed by the villagers about the said incident. Thereafter, he went to the village. By that time, his father-in-law Phullaram & brother-in-law Sadhuram were taken to the Government Hospital, Haridwar for treatment. He was informed by the villagers about the said incident. Whatever was informed to him, he got typed the same in the report and sent the same to the S.P. He also signed on the copy of the report, which is annexed as Ext. 4/2. When the application was read over to the witness, he said that it is the same application, which he gave to S.P. He named the accused Banarasi, Satish, Rampal and Peeru Singh on the basis of information gathered from the villagers. It is also stated that Smt. Baldei did not tell him the names of the accused. This witness was declared hostile, as he did not support the prosecution story. 7. P.W. 3 Kala, on oath, has stated that it is the incident, which took place around 12 years ago. At 06:00 a.m., he was standing outside his house, then noise of quarrel came out from the house of Peeru. He was with Phulla and was standing outside his house. He did not see anyone abusing and assaulting Phulla & his sister Kamla. He stated that Phulla sustained injuries, inasmuch as; he fell down from the stairs of Peeru’s roof, which was witnessed by him. He stated that a gunshot firing was done by Sadhu and the said firearm hit Banarasi. Satish did not fire at Phulla, as Satish was not there. This witness was also declared hostile, inasmuch as, he also did not support the prosecution story. 8. P.W. 4 Kaluram, on oath, has stated that it is the incident, which took place around 11 years ago. He was at his home. Neither he saw Satish, Rampal and other accused Banarasi & Peeru assaulting Phullaram nor did he saw Kamla being assaulted by them. He also stated that he did not see Satish firing on Phulla. This witness was too declared hostile, as he did not support the prosecution story. 9. C.W.1 Smt. Baldei, in her statement, has stated that it is true that no incident occurred in front of her. Accused persons did not come to her home. She did not try to evict them by throwing bricks & stones. Her eyesight is very weak. No such type of incident took place in front of her. 9. C.W.1 Smt. Baldei, in her statement, has stated that it is true that no incident occurred in front of her. Accused persons did not come to her home. She did not try to evict them by throwing bricks & stones. Her eyesight is very weak. No such type of incident took place in front of her. Her husband Phulla and sister-in-law Kamla sustained injuries, inasmuch as, they fell down from the stairs. This witness was also declared hostile, as she did not support the prosecution story. 10. The main submission of Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellant is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge/IIIrd F.T.C. Haridwar erred in acquitting the respondents. He submitted that the testimony of the injured victim is sufficient to convict the respondents accused. He submitted that learned trial Court referred the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they stated about past rivalry between the parties and relied the same for acquitting the respondents. He submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge also observed that there are contradictions between the statements of other prosecution witnesses about the place of occurrence. He also submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record and found the accused persons not guilty of offence, therefore, committed error in acquitting the accused persons. Learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the judgment under challenge is against the law and evidence available on record. He contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not taken into account that witnesses belong to rural area and statements of the witnesses were recorded after a long gap of 9 years and there are minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the statement of P.W. 1, namely, Phulla (injured) was sufficient to convict the accused persons. He contended that, by not appreciating the facts of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. IIIrd, Hardiwar had wrongly acquitted the accused persons. 11. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Court below has correctly appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and has rightly acquitted the respondents. He contended that, by not appreciating the facts of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. IIIrd, Hardiwar had wrongly acquitted the accused persons. 11. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Court below has correctly appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and has rightly acquitted the respondents. He submitted that testimony of P.W.3 cannot be disbelieved, inasmuch as, he has deposed that Phulla sustained injuries, inasmuch as, he fell down from the stairs of Peeru’s roof, which was witnessed by him. He stated that a gunshot occurred, which was done by Sadhu and the said firearm hit Banarasi. Satish did not fire at Phulla, as Satish was not there. He submitted that C.W.1, in her testimony, has stated that no such type of incident took place in front of her, and her husband Phulla and sister-in-law Kamla sustained injuries, inasmuch as, they fell down from the stairs. He submitted that charges against the accused Satish & Rampal Singh are not proved and there is nothing on record, which could show that the judgment under challenge is perverse. 12. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. The only witness who supported the prosecution story is P.W.1 Phullaram (injured/father-in- law of the complainant). It is true that testimony of injured witnesses should be accepted; but, in the present case, other witnesses, who, according to P.W.1, were present at the time of incident, have not supported the prosecution. In such situation, the trial Court is right in giving benefit of doubt to the respondents. Moreover, where two views are possible, on appreciation of evidence on record, and trial Court has taken a view holding that the accused is entitled to benefit of beyond all reasonable doubt, the Appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of fact, unless the finding is totally perverse or against the record. Hence, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been successful in proving the charge of offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. as against accused/respondents Satish & Rampal Singh, as such, the view taken by the learned trial Court is not required to be interfered with. Hence, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been successful in proving the charge of offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. as against accused/respondents Satish & Rampal Singh, as such, the view taken by the learned trial Court is not required to be interfered with. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and order dated 22.12.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. IIIrd, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.335 of 1996. 14. Therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back.