JUDGMENT Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.12.2019, passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Hariwdar, in Session Trial No. 189 of 2013, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused, Sugan Chand @ Sugni for offence under Section 302 IPC, the State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 19.08.2005, the complainant Prem Chand (P.W. 1) lodged a written report at Police Station-Pathri, District Haridwar, wherein he claimed that his father, Mohan Singh, as usual was returning back home with the cattle around 06:30 P.M. At that time, Somnath, S/o Sugan Chand @ Sugni, and two other persons, were standing near the farm belonging to the complainant's family. They surrounded his father, and told him that "he is the person who has been helping the Police against them". Therefore, today they will deal with him. These three persons hit his father on the head with the butt of the country made pistols. Thereafter, Somnath shot his father with a country made pistol. Immediately, his father fell and died. The complainant further claim that he, Prem Chand and Satish were coming from the weekly market. The moment they saw the incident, they rushed to the rescue of his father. Hearing the gunshots, the villagers also came to the spot. The complainant and his two other companions shouted for help. The complainant further claimed that, although, he recognizes Somnath, he does not know about other two companions of Somnath. If the other two companions were brought before him, he would be in a position to identify them. According to the complainant, the accused persons ran off in the northerly direction. On the basis of this complaint, a formal F.I.R, namely F.I.R. No. 63 of 2005 (Ex. Ka. 1), was chalked out for offence under Section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, the main accused Somnath, Sugan Chand @ Sugni and Rajkumar were arrested. Since Somnath was a minor, he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board; he was acquitted by judgment dated 03.06.2017. 3. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, and submitted eleven documents. On the other hand, the defense neither examined any witness, nor submitted any documents. Since Somnath was a minor, he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board; he was acquitted by judgment dated 03.06.2017. 3. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, and submitted eleven documents. On the other hand, the defense neither examined any witness, nor submitted any documents. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused Sugan Chand @ Sugni by judgment dated 03.12.2019. Hence, the present appeal by the State before this Court. 4. Mr. Jagjit Singh Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, has raised the following contentions before this Court :- Firstly, despite the fact that the case is based on direct evidence, the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective. Secondly, Prem Chand (P.W. 1) has clearly stated that he, Satish Kumar (P.W. 4) and Rajpal (not examined by the prosecution), were coming from the weekly market when the incident occurred. He further stated that the motive for commission of the crime was that Somnath was of the opinion that the complainant's father was helping the Police against Somnath's family. Therefore, although motive is not relevant in a case based on direct evidence, but nonetheless the prosecution has established the motive behind the crime. Thirdly, the prosecution has examined two eyewitnesses, namely Prem Chand (P.W. 1) and Satish Kumar (P.W. 4). Both the eye-witnesses have clearly stated that it is Somnath who had shot the deceased Mohan Singh, and his other two companions had hit Mohan Singh on the head with the butt of their country made pistols. Fourthly, Dr. Pradeep Kumar (P.W. 8) had proven the Post-Mortem Report (Ex. Ka. 11). He had clearly stated that the deceased had suffered a number of injuries on his head; the deceased had sustained two firearm injuries, one on the chest, and another on the stomach. Therefore, the death was a homicidal one. Subsequently, a country made pistol was also recovered from Somnath during the course of the investigation. Therefore, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the fact that the respondent-accused Sugan Chand @ Sugni and Rajkumar had committed the murder of Mohan Singh. However, all these glaring facts have been ignored by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside; the respondent-accused deserve to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the fact that the respondent-accused Sugan Chand @ Sugni and Rajkumar had committed the murder of Mohan Singh. However, all these glaring facts have been ignored by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set-aside; the respondent-accused deserve to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Miglani, the learned Counsel for the respondent-accused, has raised the following counter-contentions before this Court:- Firstly, the scope of interference in an acquittal order, by the Appellate Court, is extremely narrow. If the view taken by the learned Trial Court is a reasonable one, and not a perverse one, then the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed lightly by the Appellate Court. It is only when the learned Trial Court has ignored the evidence readily available on record, or has mis-appreciated the evidence, or has taken a view which is not supported by any evidence, or has misapplied the law, that a judgment of acquittal can be said to be perverse. It is only in these circumstances that an acquittal order should be disturbed. Secondly, in the present case, the learned Trial Court has critically analysed the evidence; the learned Trial Court and has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the testimonies of the two eye witnesses Prem Chand (P.W. 1) and Satish Kumar (P.W. 4). Thirdly, as stated above, Somnath, the main accused, has already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar by its judgment dated 03.08.2017. The case of the present respondent-accused Sugan Chand @ Sugni stands on a better footing than the case of Somnath. Therefore, there is no perversity, or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, this Court should not interfere with the acquittal order. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment, and critically examined the record. 7. There are certain established principles with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court while dealing with an acquittal order. In the case of Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra [ (2019) 4 SCC 739 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- 8. In the case of Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra [ (2019) 4 SCC 739 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles with regard to the powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against an acquittal order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- 8. With regard to the powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, the law is well established that the presumption of innocence which is attached to every accused person gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the trial court and the High Court should not lightly interfere with the decision of the trial court which has recorded the evidence and observed the demean our of witnesses. This Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 , laid down the following principles: (SCC p. 432, para 42) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 8. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Naresh [ (2009) 9 SCC 368 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that "an order of acquittal should not be lightly interfered with even if the court believes that there are some evidence pointing out the finger towards the accused". 9. These principles have recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali& another v. State of Himachal Pradesh [ (2020) 10 SCC 166 ]. Therefore, these settled principles of criminal jurisprudence would have to be kept in mind while examining the legality or illegality of the impugned judgment. 10. Prem Chand (P.W. 1), in his examination-in- chief, states that on 19.08.2005 at around 06-06:30 P.M. his father was returning with the cattle. When he reached near his farm, Somnath, along with two other companions, shot his father. While Somnath shot his father, the other two persons hit his father with the butt of the country made pistols. At that time he and Satish were coming back from the weekly market. He further admits in his examination-in-chief that the other two persons, who were with Somnath, were unknown to him. Subsequently, he was informed that the other two persons were Sugan Chand @ Sugni (the respondent-accused) and Rajkumar. He admitted the fact that Somnath and Sugan Chand @ Sugni are from his village and Rajkumar is from outside his village. However, in his cross-examination, he admits that he has lived in his Village-Dhariwal ever since he was born. He further admits that Somnath's house is only four-five houses away from his; he further admits that Somnath is the son of Sugan Chand @ Sugni. He further admits that Sugan Chand @ Sugni and Mohan Singh (the deceased and father of the complainant) are related to each other. He further admits that Somnath's house is only four-five houses away from his; he further admits that Somnath is the son of Sugan Chand @ Sugni. He further admits that Sugan Chand @ Sugni and Mohan Singh (the deceased and father of the complainant) are related to each other. Yet, surprisingly this witness claims that he did not recognize Sugan Chand @ Sugni, to whom he is not only related, but who is also his neighbour. Therefore, it is rather surprising that the complainant claims that Sugan Chand @ Sugni (the respondent-accused) is a stranger and unknown to him. 11. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that there are grave contradictions between the testimonies of the two eye-witnesses, namely Prem Chand (P.W. 1), and Satish Kumar (P.W. 4). Although both of them claim that they were returning on a bicycle from the weekly market, but their description of the incident are contradictory. While Prem Chand (P.W. 1) would have the Court believed that at the time of the incident he was only ten-fifteen steps away from the scene of the crime, that he could hear the assailant and the deceased, Satish Kumar (P.W. 4) claims that they were so far away from the scene of the crime that it took them ten minutes to reach the scene of the crime. While Prem Chand (P.W. 1) claims that he saw the accused persons running away from the scene of the crime, Satish Kumar (P.W. 4) claims that, by the time they reached the place of the incident, the assailants had already left. 12. It is these glaring contradictions between the testimonies of the two eye-witnesses that has led the learned Trial Court to question the veracity of their testimonies. If indeed Prem Chand (P.W. 1) was present at the scene of the crime, if, indeed, he was only ten-fifteen steps away from the place of the incident, it is rather surprising that he could not recognize Sugan Chand @ Sugni (the respondent-accused), who happens to be both his relative, and his neighbour. Moreover, it is unclear from the testimonies of the two alleged eyewitnesses as to how far they were from the scene of the crime. 13. Furthermore, according to the learned Trial Court, the place of incident was surrounded by sugarcane farms, where sugarcane was standing and the sugarcane was as tall as eight feet. Moreover, it is unclear from the testimonies of the two alleged eyewitnesses as to how far they were from the scene of the crime. 13. Furthermore, according to the learned Trial Court, the place of incident was surrounded by sugarcane farms, where sugarcane was standing and the sugarcane was as tall as eight feet. Therefore, it is amply proved that Prem Chand (P.W. 1) and Satish Kumar (P.W. 4) are certainly not eye-witnesses of the incident. 14. Considering the fact that there is an animosity between the family of the respondent-accused, and the family of the complainant, a distinct possibility does exist that the complainant has falsely roped not only the present respondent-accused, Sugan Chand @ Sugni, but also his son Somnath. 15. The learned Trial Court has also noticed the fact that, despite of allegation of the prosecution that all the three assailants were armed with firearm weapons, namely country made pistols, no country made pistol, or firearm, has been recovered from the present respondent-accused. Somnath, the main accused, from whom a pistol had been recovered, has already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. Therefore, the case of the present respondent-accused stands on a far better footing than the case of Somnath. 16. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. In fact, the impugned judgment has been passed after critically analysing and assessing the evidence produced by the prosecution. Since the prosecution case is replete with gaping holes, the learned Trial Court was legally justified in acquitting the respondent-accused. 17. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is hereby dismissed.