JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In ST No. 82 of 2000, Baij Nath Pandey, Ganesh Pandey, Murari Pandey, Bhola Pandey and Surendra Prasad were acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Umeshwar Prasad Singh with firearm, for which a separate charge under section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against Ganesh Pandey and Murari Pandey. 2. Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, the learned APP states that during pendency of the present acquittal appeal Baij Nath Pandey, Bhola Pandey and Surendra Prasad have passed away. 3. The learned APP refers to the order dated 7th September 2016 by which Acquittal Appeal No. 10 of 2022 was abated qua respondent No.4. 4. The learned APP has also referred to the affidavit dated 8th February 2023 to submit that the present acquittal appeal has abated against the respondent Nos.1 and 5 as well. 5. A First Information Report was lodged on 20th July 1999 on the basis of the fardbeyan of Shatrughan Singh. 6. The prosecution case is that Shatrughan Singh gave his fardbeyan on 20th July 1999 at 06:50AM at RMCH, Ranchi before the officer-in-charge of Bariatu Police Station. He has stated that on 19th July 1999 at about 07:00 PM he along with his elder brother Umeshwar Prasad Singh were going to see the work at Railway Diesel shed. When they reached in front of the house of Ram Dayal, the brother and nephew of Bhola Pandey who is a rangdar of Patratu village started chasing them. Ganesh Pandey opened fire upon them and then Murari Pandey came running near Umeshwar Prasad Singh and fired Pistol shot at him. The informant raised hulla whereupon Ganesh Pandey, Murari Pandey and Baij Nath Pandey fled away. 7. In the trial, the prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses but PW1 to PW5 did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. The learned trial Judge has referred to the testimonies of the witnesses who are the independent witnesses to make an observation that these witnesses turning hostile has dealt a severe blow to the prosecution case. 8. While recording acquittal of the respondents, the learned trial Judge has made the following observations: “43. Prosecution has stressed much that it was Bhola Pandey who piloted conspiracy in killing of Umeshwar Prasad Singh as Rangdari Tax was not paid. 8. While recording acquittal of the respondents, the learned trial Judge has made the following observations: “43. Prosecution has stressed much that it was Bhola Pandey who piloted conspiracy in killing of Umeshwar Prasad Singh as Rangdari Tax was not paid. Letters marked exhibit-1, 1/A, 1/B are said to be sent by Bhola Pandey accused from jail. Admittedly Bhola Pandey was in jail custody from 12.11.98 to 7.12.99 as per marked exhibit E.Meaning thereby at the time of occurrence he was in jail. On perusal of writing of letter marked ext. 1, 1/A I find is in different writing. It was bounden duty of the prosecution to examine writing and signature of Bhola Pandey by an expert but it was not done so. More or less exhibit 1 is of dated 17.12.95 but the same was not filed in Patratu PS Case No. 37/99. Exhibit 1/A, 1/B have also not been filed in Patratu PS Case No. 37/99 as judgment ext.D speaks so why these letters were not filed in Patratu PS Case No. 37/99. the reason best known to the prosecution. 44. For the aforesaid reasons I come to the conclusion that testimony of eye witness P.W.6 has been clouded with grave suspicion and discrepancy and the manner in which place of occurrence, presence of accused persons on spot and taking place of occurrence have been presented, those are highly doubtful and it wipes out possibility of presence of P.W. 6 at the time of occurrence with Umeshwar Pd. Singh deceased. On that account I find prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.” 9. After hearing Mr. A.K.Kashyap, the learned senior counsel for the respondents; Mr. Awanish Shekhar, the learned counsel who appears for the informant in Cr. Revision No. 631 of 2002 and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, the learned counsel for the State-appellant, we have formed an opinion that the judgment of acquittal in ST Case No. 82 of 2000 does not warrant interference by this Court. 10. The prosecution has referred to and relied upon the evidence tendered by PW6 who was projected as an eyewitness. However, the learned trial Judge has disbelieved him on the ground that there was animosity between the parties. PW6 was an accused in ST No. 143 of 2000 and there is serious doubt that PW6 is an eyewitness. 11. 10. The prosecution has referred to and relied upon the evidence tendered by PW6 who was projected as an eyewitness. However, the learned trial Judge has disbelieved him on the ground that there was animosity between the parties. PW6 was an accused in ST No. 143 of 2000 and there is serious doubt that PW6 is an eyewitness. 11. The learned trial Judge has dealt with the motive for murder of Umeshwar Prasad Singh in paragraph Nos. 37 to 41 of the judgment under challenge and held as under: “37. It is essential to see what was motive behind the occurrence. Prosecution has asserted it was due to non payment of Rangdari tax but besides that as per fard beyan and evidence due to rivalry in contractory business arising out of that. Occurrence has taken place that can not be ruled out. 38. Admittedly Raj Narain Singh, Umeshwar Pd. Singh, Surendra Pd. And Ganesh Pandey have been Railway Contractors and for having contractory work competition among them is natural in respect of tender. 39. The prosecution claims that Bhola Pandey Rangdar of Patratu even in jall used to send letters through his brother and nephew accused persons to the informant and his brother for realisation of Rangdari tax letters marked exhibit1, 1/A and 1/B are referred for the purpose. I repeat that Baij Nath Pandey, Bhola Pandey, Ganesh Pandey have never made accused for Rangdari Tax. Had this fact been so then there might be a case against these persons, of course there is a case for Rangdari i.e. Patratu P.S. 37/99 against Bhola Pandey but he has been acquitted marked exhibit D. Judgment is there. 40. Having mind of case of the prosecution, evidence I find that motive behind death of Umeshwar Prasad Singh has been rivalry in contractory business as Umeshwar Prasad Singh has been shot dead and Raj Narain Singh was also murdered and both these contractors have been killed. This fact goes to show that Rangdari Tax was not the motive rather it was contractory business for which enmity arose. 41. In the instant case Raj Narain Singh was an accused was killed during pendency of the case. Surendra Pd. This fact goes to show that Rangdari Tax was not the motive rather it was contractory business for which enmity arose. 41. In the instant case Raj Narain Singh was an accused was killed during pendency of the case. Surendra Pd. is also an accused against whom it has only been stated that he had alliance with Bhola Pandey, Murari Pandey, Ganesh Pandey but what conspiracy did Surendra Prasad in commission of an offence as alleged has not been explained.” 12. The learned trial Judge has referred to the evidence of the parties laid during the trial and on appreciation thereof has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under sections 302/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act as framed against the accused in ST Case No. 82 of 2000. 13. This is a well-accepted proposition in law that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is not interfered with by the High Court in exercise of the powers under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the view taken by the learned trial Court must be accorded precedence. 14. In “Mahavir Singh v. State of M.P.” (2016) 10 SCC 220 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion.” 15. Acquittal Appeal No. 10 of 2002 is dismissed and, consequently, Cr. Revision No. 631 of 2002 is also dismissed.