JUDGMENT : Virendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23.10.1981, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.136 of 1981 (State vs. Umashankar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 1980, P.S.-Qasimpur, District-Hardoi, whereby the respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as respondents) Uma Shankar, Pyare Lal (since deceased) and Ashok have been acquitted by the trial Court from the charges of offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 2. During pendency of appeal, the respondent no.2-Pyare Lal had died and the present appeal filed against him has been abated by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2017. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Chhotey Lal (hereinafter referred to as deceased), father of P.W.2-Laxmi Kant, the respondents-Pyare Lal (since deceased), Uma Shankar and Ashok were resident of village Rasoolpur Brehman, P.S.-Qasimpur, District-Hardoi. The respondent-Pyare Lal (since deceased) was father of respondent-Ashok whereas respondent-Uma Shankar is friend of respondent-Pyare Lal (since deceased). Shiv Kant, another son of deceased, used to sit with the respondents which was not liked by the deceased as the respondents did not had good character. On 04.11.1980 at 4:00 a.m., the deceased along with his son Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) was going to plough his field and as they reached near the grove of Chhannu (not examined), the respondents appeared there. Respondent-Ashok was armed with country made pistol whereas respondents-Pyare Lal (since deceased) and Uma Shankar were armed with lathis. The respondent-Pyare Lal (since deceased) instigated the respondents-Uma Shankar and Ashok to kill the deceased whereupon Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) tried to save his father but he was caught by the respondent-Uma Shankar. On hue and cry made by Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2), Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) appeared at the place of occurrence carrying torches. Meanwhile, the respondent-Ashok fired at the deceased with pistol carried by him, which hit the chest of the deceased, whereupon he fell down. Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) and other villagers took the deceased by bullock cart at Police Station-Qasimpur, District-Hardoi, where at 7:20 a.m., a written report, (Ext. Ka-1), prepared on dictation of deceased by one Raj Narain (P.W.-1), was filed and first information report (F.I.R.) was registered against the respondents-Pyare Lal (since deceased), Uma Shankar and Ashok and the same was registered as Case Crime No.188 of 1980, under Sections-307/34 I.P.C.. Ka-1), prepared on dictation of deceased by one Raj Narain (P.W.-1), was filed and first information report (F.I.R.) was registered against the respondents-Pyare Lal (since deceased), Uma Shankar and Ashok and the same was registered as Case Crime No.188 of 1980, under Sections-307/34 I.P.C.. The deceased was sent to Primary Health Center, Behandar, District-Hardoi for recording his dying declaration and his dying declaration was recorded at 8:00 a.m. on 04.11.1980 by Dr. R. K. Singh Chauhan (P.W.-8). The deceased was referred to District Hospital, Hardoi, as his condition was critical, for treatment. Dr. S. N. Singh (P.W.-5), examined the injuries of the deceased at 12:45 p.m. on 04.11.1980 and noted the following injuries on his body : "Gunshot wound of entry on the right side of chest, just adjacent to the sternal border, 3cmx3cm,chest cavity deep. Margins inverted, bleeds on touch. Air is gashping out of the wound with respiration. Air cavity is present on whole of chest, back with arm and neck. Swelling on the face was present. 4. According to Doctor (P.W.-5), the injuries of the deceased were very dangerous in nature as it was caused by some fire arm and its duration was about 1/4 day. The patient (deceased) was in a very critical condition and was having a difficulty in talking at that time. He prepared the injury report as Ext. Ka-13. 5. During treatment, the deceased died in District Hospital, Hardoi at 4:25 p.m. on 04.11.1980. The inquest report was prepared by S.I., Vidur JI Tripathi (P.W.-3), who sealed the dead body of the deceased and sent the same for post-mortem examination along with relevant papers to District Hospital, Hardoi. Dr. U. D. Kapoor (P.W.-6), Medical Officer In-charge, Sadar Hospital, District-Hardoi conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased at 11:00 a.m. on 06.11.1980 and found the following ante mortem injuries : (i) One gunshot wound of entry 3 cms x 2 cms x chest cavity deep on right side of the chest. Blackening was present around the wound. (ii) The third and fourth ribs were fractured. The pleura on the right side was badly lacerated and about 8 ounce of blood was present. (iii) The right lung was badly lacerated. According to him, during examination, three wadding pieces and 22 small pellets were found from the body of the deceased. Blackening was present around the wound. (ii) The third and fourth ribs were fractured. The pleura on the right side was badly lacerated and about 8 ounce of blood was present. (iii) The right lung was badly lacerated. According to him, during examination, three wadding pieces and 22 small pellets were found from the body of the deceased. In the opinion of Doctor (P.W.-6), death of deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, resulted by ante mortem injury. 6. Investigation of the case was entrusted to S.I., Sri Ram Patil (P.W.-4), posted at Qasimpur, who recorded the statements of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2), Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined). He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan (Ext.Ka-6), examined the torches and took it in his custody from Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) and after examination, handed over to them. He prepared the memo of handing over of torches (Ext.Ka-5). 7. During investigation, after the death of deceased, the case was converted into under Section 302 I.P.C. and thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to S.O. Raj Bahadur Singh (not examined), Station Officer, P.S.-Qasimpur, who, after due investigation, filed charge sheet (Ext. Ka-9) against the respondents under Section 302 I.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi, who took the cognizance of an offence and since the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, after providing the copies of relevant police papers, committed the case to Court of Sessions, Hardoi for trial. 8. The charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the respondent-Ashok whereas the charge for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. was framed against the respondents-Uma Shankar and Pyare Lal (since deceased). All the respondents denied the charges levelled against them and claimed for trial. 9. During trial, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Raj Narain (P.W.-1), Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2), S.I., Vidur JI Tripathi (P.W.-3), S.I., Sri Ram Patil (P.W.-4), Dr. S. N. Singh (P.W.-5), Dr. U. D. Kapoor (P.W.-6), Constable Sarju Prasad (P.W.-7) and Dr. R. K. Singh Chauhan (P.W.-8). Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) (eye witness of the occurrence) and Dr. R. K. Singh Chauhan (P.W.-8), who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased are witnesses of facts whereas rest are formal witnesses. 10. S. N. Singh (P.W.-5), Dr. U. D. Kapoor (P.W.-6), Constable Sarju Prasad (P.W.-7) and Dr. R. K. Singh Chauhan (P.W.-8). Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) (eye witness of the occurrence) and Dr. R. K. Singh Chauhan (P.W.-8), who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased are witnesses of facts whereas rest are formal witnesses. 10. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of respondents were recorded under Section 364 Cr.P.C., 1898 (Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973). They denied the prosecution evidence and stated that they were falsely implicated due to previous enmity. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. The learned trial Court, after considering the entire evidence available on record, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted all the respondents vide impugned judgment and order. 11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court, this appeal has been preferred by the State. 12. Heard learned A.G.A., Sri Subodh Kumar Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the record. 13. Learned A.G.A. has submitted the impugned judgment and order passed by Trial Court is against the settled provision of criminal jurisprudence. He further submitted that Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2), son of deceased, was present at the time of occurrence and had seen the whole incident ; his evidence can not be discarded but the trial Court had disbelieved his evidence only on the technical ground. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that disbelieving the second dying declaration of the deceased, recorded by Dr. R. K. Singh Chauhan (P.W.-8) as it was not recorded in question and answer form, is against the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that there is no defect in the dying declaration of the deceased and ocular evidence is wholly corroborated by the medical evidence led by the prosecution. Learned A.G.A, further submitted that the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged offence was committed in the dark night and outskirts of the village where the presence of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) was not natural. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged offence was committed in the dark night and outskirts of the village where the presence of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) was not natural. Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) is not supported by the medical evidence led by Dr. S. N. Singh (P.W.-5). Learned counsel further submitted that in the F.I.R., source of light was not mentioned, during investigation prosecution story was manufactured that Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) appeared at the place of occurrence carrying torches but these witnesses were not produced by the prosecution to prove the source of light. Learned counsel further submitted that dying declaration is forged and false because deceased was not in position to speak. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents are innocent ; the deceased was murdered by unknown persons in the night but due to enmity, they were falsely implicated in this case. 15. We have considered the arguments led by learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 16. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the whole prosecution story is based on the statement of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) and dying declaration of the deceased. Learned trial Court disbelieved the testimony of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) on the ground that the alleged incident was taken place at 4:00 a.m. on 04.11.1980 and at that time there was no source of light at the place of occurrence. Learned trial Court found that on 04.11.1980 sun would have risen at 6:30 a.m. It cannot be believed that even the slightest day light would have been available at 4: 00 a.m. on that day. In addition to it, learned trial Court also disbelieved the statement of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) because the deceased had not mentioned the presence of any light at the place of occurrence in his dying declaration (Ext. Ka16). In the said facts and circumstances, learned trial Court was of the view that Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) could not have been in a position to identify the assailants properly. Ka16). In the said facts and circumstances, learned trial Court was of the view that Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) could not have been in a position to identify the assailants properly. In addition to the above, learned trial Court also disbelieved the testimony of Laxami Kant (P.W.-2) on the ground that he had stated that the respondent-Ashok had fired a shot from a distance of 5 steps at his father whereas according to medical evidence, the shot was fired from a very close range as blackening was found present around the wound and the pellets and wadding pieces had entered into the body of the deceased. Learned trial Court also disbelieved the prosecution story on the ground that second dying declaration (Ext.-Ka-16) of the deceased was not in question and answer form. 17. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution case cannot discarded only on the ground that it is based on sole eye witness who is relative of deceased if his testimony is fully trustworthy and reliable. Thus, in this case, it has also to be seen whether the testimony of Laxmi Kant (P.W.2) is reliable or not ? Coming to the facts of this case, admittedly, the alleged occurrence was happened on 04.11.1980 at about 4:00 a.m. in the outskirts of village-Rasoolpur. From the perusal of site plan (Ext. Ka-6), it appears that the said occurrence was caused nearby the grove of one Chhannu Lal (not examined) and nearby the place of occurrence and no residential area has been shown. Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2), star witness of prosecution, has stated that at the time of occurrence, it was 5:00 a.m., he and his father were going to plough his field ; he was carrying plough (Patela) and as they reached near the western side to grove of Chhannu Lal (not examined), he saw that respondents-Pyare Lal (since deceased), Uma Shankar and Ashok were present there ; respondent-Ashok was armed with tamancha (countrymade pistol) whereas respondent-Uma Shankar and Pyare Lal (since deceased) were armed with lathis. He further stated that respondent-Pyare Lal (since deceased) exhortated to kill his father as he ran to save his father, he was caught by respondent-Uma Shankar then respondent-Ashok fired at his father by pistol which hit right side of his father's chest. He further stated that respondent-Ashok had fired from distance of 4-5 steps. He further stated that respondent-Pyare Lal (since deceased) exhortated to kill his father as he ran to save his father, he was caught by respondent-Uma Shankar then respondent-Ashok fired at his father by pistol which hit right side of his father's chest. He further stated that respondent-Ashok had fired from distance of 4-5 steps. According to him, on his alarm, Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) appeared at the place of occurrence and thereafter the aforesaid respondents fled away. He further stated that it was 4:30 a.m. when his father was shot and there was some light in which he identified the respondents. He further stated that he with the help of witnesses brought his father at his house, thereafter he had gone to place of occurrence to bring the plough and when he returned at his house, he learnt that Raj Narain (P.W.-1) had prepared F.I.R. (Tahrir) (Ext.K-1). In cross examination, he admitted that he had not told to Investigating Officer concerned that at the time of occurrence, he was carrying plough (Patela). He further admitted that it was dark night at the time of occurrence and Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) were carrying torches and it was 4:00 a.m. when fire was shot at his father. Further according to this witness, fire was shot from the distance of five steps whereas the according to Dr. U. D. Kapoor, (P.W.-6), the blackening was present around the wound and three wadding pieces and twenty two small pellets were found from the body of the deceased during post-mortem examination. Thus, in absence of source of light and as the medical evidence is not in support of the testimony of this sole eyewitness, the evidence of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) becomes doubtful. 18. In addition to the above, although no effective effort was made by Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) to save his father and only on this ground, his statement cannot be held unreliable but his statement that he, leaving his seriously injured father, had gone to take back plough (Patela) from the place of occurrence in stead to make any effort to carry his father to any hospital forthwith for treatment and meanwhile F.I.R. (Tahrir) (Ext.K-1) was prepared by Raj Narayan (P.W.-1) further makes his conduct and evidence very doubtful. 19. 19. In first information report, the presence of Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) has also been shown, who appeared at the place of occurrence on the alarm raised by Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2). They were independent witnesses. As per prosecution story, they were carrying torches but reasons based known to the prosecution, neither Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) were produced nor said torches were produced before the Trial Court. The prosecution has not put any plausible explanation of non production of those witnesses and vital piece of evidence, which also made the prosecution case doubtful. 20. The prosecution case is also based on the dying declaration made by the deceased which was recorded by Dr. R. K. Singh Chuahan (P.W.-8). It is settled principle of law that an accused may be convicted only on the basis of dying declaration if it is true and is reliable because the admissibility of dying declaration is based on the Latin Maxim "Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur mentire" which means that a person will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. It is also settled principle that dying declaration cannot be treated as gospel truth; it must inspire the confidence of the Court and before relying on such dying declaration the Court has to satisfy itself regarding truthfulness and veracity of the statement of the person who had recorded and proved such dying declaration because the person who had made the dying declaration never comes before the Court for examination and the defence has no opportunity to cross examine him. In true sense, the evidence of dying declaration is nothing but heresay evidence which is inadmissible in evidence. Thus it is duty of the Court to ensure the fact that whether such dying declaration was made by the deceased or not, and if it is made by him, whether the deceased was in free and sound state of mind and was not tutored, influenced or pressurized by any person. If it is proved that the maker of the statement was tutored, influenced, pressurized or was not in a position to make such dying declaration or any reasonable suspicion appears in the manner of recording thereof, such dying declaration cannot be made as sole basis for the conviction of accused. 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atbir Vs. If it is proved that the maker of the statement was tutored, influenced, pressurized or was not in a position to make such dying declaration or any reasonable suspicion appears in the manner of recording thereof, such dying declaration cannot be made as sole basis for the conviction of accused. 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atbir Vs. Government (N.C.T. Of Delhi) (2010) 9 SCC 1 , while discussing the factors governing the reliability of the dying declaration on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles in this regard as follows:- "The following principles can be culled out from earlier decisions of the Supreme Court:- (i) Dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires the full confidence of the court. (ii) The court should be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. (iii) Where the court is satisfied that the declaration is true and voluntary, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. (iv) It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. (v) Where the dying declaration is suspicious, it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity such as the deceased was unconscious and could never make any statement cannot form the basis of conviction. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain all the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. (viii) Even if it is a brief statement, it is not to be discarded. (ix) When the eyewitness affirms that the deceased was not in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration, medical opinion cannot prevail. (x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration." (Emphasis supplied) 22. (x) If after careful scrutiny, the court is satisfied that it is true and free from any effort to induce the deceased to make a false statement and if it is coherent and consistent, there shall be no legal impediment to make it the basis of conviction, even if there is no corroboration." (Emphasis supplied) 22. Further, it is also well settled principle of law that the dying declaration, if it is true and free from any reasonable doubt as well as inspire the confidence of Trial Court, may be sole ground for the conviction. Before relying on such dying declaration, it has to be seen whether there was sufficient light on the place of occurrence and the deceased was in a position to identify the assailant and such dying declaration was recorded in proper manner i.e. in question and answer form or not. Before relying on such dying declaration, it has to be seen whether there was sufficient light on the place of occurrence and the deceased was in a position to identify the assailant and such dying declaration was recorded in proper manner i.e. in question and answer form or not. The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Harbans Sing and another vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439 while relying the settled principle of law on dying declaration as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Khushal Rao vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 22 , has held as under :- "The Court then proceeded to review the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and of the decided cases in the different High Courts in India and in this Court and stated the law in these words: “That it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; (2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; (3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; (4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; (5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent Magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character, and (6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties”. “Hence, in order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. But once the court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration. If, on the other hand, the court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then, without corroboration it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, as held in some of the reported cases, but from the fact that the court, in a given case has come to the conclusion that that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities referred to above or from other infirmities as may be disclosed in evidence in that case.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. Dying declaration (Ext. Ka-16) of the deceased was recorded on 04.11.1980 at about 8:00 a.m. by Dr. R. K. Singh Chauhan (P.W.-8). This dying declaration does not show whether any question was put to deceased regarding occurrence or not ? In this dying declaration neither any source of light nor presence of Laxmi Kant (P.W.-2) nor presence of Ratan Shankar (not examined) and Chhannu Lal (not examined) has been stated by deceased. As per this dying declaration, only deceased was going at about 4:00 a.m. to plough his field and when he reached near the grove of Chhannu Lal, the respondents-Pyare Lal, Uma Shankar and Ashok appeared at the place of occurrence, they stopped the deceased and on the exhortation of the respondent-Pyare Lal (since deceased), the respondent-Ashok fired on the person of deceased by pistol. According to Dr. S. N. Singh (P.W.-5), injuries of the deceased was so dangerous that it bleeds on touch and air was gashping out of the wound with the respiration ; the patient was in very critical condition. In his opinion, the injury of the patient was dangerous in nature. According to Dr. S. N. Singh (P.W.-5), injuries of the deceased was so dangerous that it bleeds on touch and air was gashping out of the wound with the respiration ; the patient was in very critical condition. In his opinion, the injury of the patient was dangerous in nature. Thus, in view of absence of source of light at the place of occurrence, critical condition of deceased and also it is not in question and answer form, the dying declaration (Ext. Ka-16) is doubtful and not reliable. 24. It is settled principle of law that the accused will be presumed as innocent unless and until the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence of accused is further strengthened if he is acquitted by the Trial Court after considering the material evidence available on record. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Surajpal Singh and others Vs. State, AIR 1952 SC 52 held as under :- "It is well-established that in an appeal under section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well-settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons." (Emphasis supplied). 25. It is also well settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, one is in favour of accused-person and judgment of Trial Court is not illegal or manifestly perverse, the appellate Court should not disturb the order of acquittal. Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mukesh and others, (2007) 2 SCC 680 held as under : "Moreover, it must be borne in mind that we are dealing with a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. If two views are possible, ordinarily this Court would not interfere therewith. The State has not been able to show any illegality in the judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, do not intend to interfere therewith. The appeal is dismissed." 26. If two views are possible, ordinarily this Court would not interfere therewith. The State has not been able to show any illegality in the judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, do not intend to interfere therewith. The appeal is dismissed." 26. In the light of above discussions, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order passed by Trial Court is well reasoned, well discussed and requires no interference. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.1981 passed by Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.136 of 1981, whereby the respondents-accused were acquitted. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 27. The judgment and order dated 23.10.1981 passed by Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.136 of 1981 is affirmed. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.