JUDGMENT : RAJIV GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, learned AGA for the State, Raghvendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent and perused the record. 2. The present Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.1.1984 passed by 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Aligarh in S.T. No. 246 of 1983 (State Vs. Khajan and others), P.S. Harduaganj, District-Aligarh, by which the accused-respondent has been acquitted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC as well as under Section 148 IPC. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution case as unraveled in the first information report, which was lodged by one Veerpal Sharma (PW-2) on 1.5.1982 at 3 P.M. in police station-Harduaganj, District-Aligarh in respect of an incident occurred on 30.4.1982 at 11 p.m. in the night. It is alleged that on the fateful night, the first informant alongwith his servant Ranvir were sitting in his Khalihan and were conversing while his son Satyadev was sleeping beside them, when accused-respondent Khajan son of Chhiddu, Shamshad son of Basheer, Haneef son of Maseet, Edal son of Manik, Ramji Lal son of Lal Singh, Habib son of Bindu allegedly reached there and stated to kill Veerpal, consequent thereto Khajan fired a shot at him, however it missed the target, on which all others exhorted Shamshad to assault him, consequent to which, Shamshad fired a shot at him by a country made pistol. He in order to rescue himself, bent down, yet he received injuries on his head. 4. It is further stated that Ramji Lal and Hanif armed with farsa also stood there, Edal assaulted him by lathi whereas Hanif assaulted him by the reverse side of the ballam, consequent to which, he fell down and his servant was also assaulted by them. At the time of assault, his son was raising alarm from a distance. He alongwith his servant also raised alarm, consequent to which, Khubi and Soran and several other persons reached there, who in the moon light and in the flash of torch, saw and identified the assailants, however seeing the said witnesses, the assailants ran away. 5. At the time of assault, his son was raising alarm from a distance. He alongwith his servant also raised alarm, consequent to which, Khubi and Soran and several other persons reached there, who in the moon light and in the flash of torch, saw and identified the assailants, however seeing the said witnesses, the assailants ran away. 5. It is further stated that he is having prior enmity with Edal and the other accused persons, who are members of his gang, on the basis of said written report given by Veerpal, a first information report was registered vide Case Crime No. 77 of 1982, under Sections 147/149 and 307 IPC, Police Station-Harduaganj, District-Aligarh. On the basis of said written report, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-3, the first information report was registered, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-6. 6. After registration of the said first information report, the victims Ranvir and Veepal were sent for medical examination at Primary Health Centre, Harduaganj, Aligarh, whereas Dr. D.P. Singh has examined their injuries and prepared the injury report, which has been proved and marked as Exbt. Ka-1 and Exbt. Ka-2. The doctor has noted the following injuries: Injuries of Ranvir Singh 1. Abraded bruise 1 x 1/4” X 1/2” on the lateral aspect of right side of abdomen in the mid auxillary line just adjacent to the right iliac crest at the level of umblicus. Pink red in appearance surrounded by a diffuse ill defined swelling. 2. Bruise 2” X 1 / 2 “ on the left side of back 4” x 1 / 2” away from mid line and 2” x 1/4” below the lower end of left scapula bone. Pink red in appearance. Both the above injuries are simple in nature caused by same blunt object, duration 1/2 day old. Injuries of Virpal Sharma 1. Lacerated wound 1” X 1/8” X 1/10” on the scalp in the mid line, horizontally placed. Whose base and margins are charred and tail end towards the right temple, surrounding hair are also charred and burnt. 2. Abrasion 1/2” X 1/20” on the fronto-lateral aspect of left shoulder joint 1 x 1/2” below the top of shoulder. 3. Bruise 2 x 1/2” X 1 x 1/4” on the front and top aspect of left shoulder joint. Pink red in appearance. 4. 2. Abrasion 1/2” X 1/20” on the fronto-lateral aspect of left shoulder joint 1 x 1/2” below the top of shoulder. 3. Bruise 2 x 1/2” X 1 x 1/4” on the front and top aspect of left shoulder joint. Pink red in appearance. 4. Abraded Bruise 1 x 3/4” X 1/2” on the postero-lateral aspect of the middle of left forearm. Pink red in appearance. 5. Bruise 1 x 1/4” X 1/2” on the back of left elbow joint. Pink red in appearance. All the above injuries are simple in nature. Injury No. 1 appears to be caused by some firearm whereas all others are caused by some blunt object. Direction from 1/5” left to right. Duration 1/2 day old. All injuries are simple in nature. Injury No. 1 appears to be caused by some firearm whereas others are caused by blunt object. Duration ½ day old. 7. After registration of the said first information report, investigation of the case was entrusted to Diwan Singh (PW-4) on 10.5.1982. The Investigating Officer thereafter recorded the statement of Head Moharrir and visited the place of incident and recorded the statement of first informant Veerpal and on his pointing out prepared the siteplan, which has been marked as Exbt. Ka-4. He thereafter recorded the statement of Satyadev and other witnesses and after concluding the investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons on 8.6.1982. 8. On the basis of said charge sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and since the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, made over the case to the court of Sessions for trial, where it was registered as Session Trial No. 246 of 1983 (State vs. Khajan and others). The trial court on 27.8.1983 framed the charges against the accused persons under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The charges were read out and explained to the accused who did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Further vide order dated 4.10.1983 charges under Sections 307/149, 323/149, 147, 148 were also framed, which was read out to the accused respondents, who abjured the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused respondents have produced as many as two witnesses of fact and and two formal witnesses. Their testimony in brief is enumerated hereunder. 10. Dr. 9. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt against the accused respondents have produced as many as two witnesses of fact and and two formal witnesses. Their testimony in brief is enumerated hereunder. 10. Dr. D.P. Singh (PW-1) is the medical officer, who had medically examined two injured witnesses, namely Veerpal Singh and Ranvir Singh on 1.5.1982 at Primary Health Centre, Harduaganj, who are said to have been brought by constable Amar Singh, Police Station-Harduaganj. The injuries on the person of victims have already been mentioned above. 11. During cross examination, he stated that the duration of said injuries could vary 6 hours on either side. He further stated that the injuries found on the person of Ranvir could be manufactured. The injury No. 1 of Veerpal can also be manufactured/manipulated by touch of some heated iron object, however, injury nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 can very well be manufactured. 12. Veerpal Sharma (PW-2) is the first informant of the case and injured witness. He, in his testimony has stated that the incident had taken place about one and half year back at about 11:30 p.m. in the khalian where Ranvir and Satyadev were also present. It was a moon lit night, when Khajan, Shamshad, Hanif, Ramji Lal, Edal and Habib reached khalian. Khajan and Shamshad were having country made pistol, Hanif and Ramji Lal were having farsa, Edal was having ballam and Habib was having a lathi. On their reaching, Khajan stated to kill him by opening fire and with an intention to assault, opened fire, however it missed the target then Habib armed with lathi and Edal armed with ballam started assaulting him from the reverse side of the ballam. Hanif and Ramji Lal asked Shamshad to assault him, on which Shamshad opened fire by a country made pistol, consequent to which, he received injuries on his head. Hanif and Habib armed with lathi also caused injuries to him and Ranvir also received injuries, who was hit by Habib with lathi. On raising alarm, number of witnesses reached there, however the assailants escaped. 13. Hanif and Habib armed with lathi also caused injuries to him and Ranvir also received injuries, who was hit by Habib with lathi. On raising alarm, number of witnesses reached there, however the assailants escaped. 13. It is further stated that father of appellant Edal had instituted a case under Section 307 IPC against him, in which, about one month and ten days back he was acquitted of the said offence, consequent to which, Edal was having enmity with him and on account of which he was assaulted by the accused persons. During cross examination, he stated that a case under Section 307 IPC was instituted against him, in which, he alongwith Amar Singh and Mohan were accused, in which, he has been acquitted, Habib was a witness in the said case. On the day of incident, he was present in the khalihan from the very morning alongwith Ranvir. His son reached the khalian at 7 a.m. bringing his food and did not return back home. The day of incident was a moon lit night, however, after one and a half hours of the incident it became dark. He had disclosed to the Investigating Officer that at the time when assailants reached there, he was sitting on the cot and Khajan opened fire upon him. After the said fire, two assailants started assaulting him with lathi by giving four blows each, however he did not fell on the cot and stood up. When Hanif exhorted Shamshad to open fire, he fired a shot, however, he did not fell down but bent down. Fire shot by Khajan did not hit him. It is true that Khajan first fired upon him but it did not hit him then two other assailants hit him by a lathi and ballam and then Shamshad fired upon him. He did not state to the Investigating Officer that after Shamshad opened fire then he was assaulted by lathi and ballam. The said incident continued for about 5-6 minutes, however no blood fell on the cot or on the wearing apparels and only a very little blood oozed out from his head injury. 14. He did not find any pellets at the place of incident nor any blood and further denied the suggestion that he was not fired upon by a country made pistol and the injuries were manufactured. Injuries of Ranvir also did not bleed. 14. He did not find any pellets at the place of incident nor any blood and further denied the suggestion that he was not fired upon by a country made pistol and the injuries were manufactured. Injuries of Ranvir also did not bleed. It is wrong to state that he has lodged the report in collusion with the police. The injuries were examined at 9 a.m. 15. Ranvir Singh (PW-3) is the other eye witness and he stated that on the fateful night at about 11 p.m., he alongwith Veerpal and Satyadev were present at the khalian when Khajan, Shamshad, Hanif, Habib, Ramji Lal and Edal reached there, Veerpal questioned as to who it was, then Khajan stated to kill him and fired a shot, however, the shot did not hit Veerpal. Thereafter Habib and Edal started assaulting Veerpal by lathi and reverse side of the ballam. Then Hanif exhorted Shamshad to open fire, who shot a fire, which grazed through the head of Veerpal. He along with Veerpal received injuries. The witnesses were identified in moon light, who ran away towards the river. Khajan and Shamshad were having country made pistol, Hanif and Ramji Lal were having farsas, Edal was having ballam and Habib was having lathi. His injuries were examined by the doctor. 16. During cross examination, he stated that the report in respect of incident was scribed by Om Prakash in moon light. Veerpal injuries were seen by Moharrir. Veerpal injuries were caused by firearm. Veerpal was not wearing clothes smeared with blood. A very little blood oozed out from his wound. Shamshad fired upon Veerpal in a standing position facing each other from the distance of 2-3 paces. Shamshad first hit and then others hit. Veerpal was given 34 lathi blows. He was interrogated by the Investigating Officer after 8-10 days of the incident. He further stated that it is wrong to state that no incident took place and he received injuries. 17. Diwan Singh (PW-4) is the Investigating Officer of the instant case, who has recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and after concluding the investigation, had submitted charge sheet. He further stated that it is wrong to state that no incident took place and he received injuries. 17. Diwan Singh (PW-4) is the Investigating Officer of the instant case, who has recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan and after concluding the investigation, had submitted charge sheet. During cross examination, he stated that Veerpal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had disclosed that all the assailants came near him and stated to kill Veerpal then Khajan opened fire, which did not hit him and he narrowly escaped then all the accused-persons exhorted Shamshad to kill him, consequent to which, Shamshad opened fire though he bent down but still pellets hit his head. Hanif and Ramji Lal stood there holding farsa whereas Edal and Habib assaulted him by lathi and reverse side of the ballam. 18. Thereafter, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances to the accused-respondents. The accused-respondents denied the incident and clearly stated that on account of past enmity, they have been falsely implicated, however the defence has not led any evidence. The trial court after appreciating the evidence and material on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent and thus acquitted all the accused-respondent by holding that rest of the accused except Ramji Lal are neither the relatives of Edal with whom victim Veerpal was having serious enmity but they are not even their friends and had no animosity with him, however just on account of fact that Veerpal was an accused in a case of attempt to murder of Manik father of Edal, in which case he had been acquitted just one month before and, as such, in order to settle their scores and to teach a lesson to Edal he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The trial court further stated that the accused-respondent is alleged to have opened fire upon the victim from a distance of 2-3 paces, however he received only a grazing injury on his head though he is said to have bent down when the fire was made. The trial court has further held that even Edal was armed with ballam but he is said to have assaulted Veerpal from its reverse side. The trial court has further held that even Edal was armed with ballam but he is said to have assaulted Veerpal from its reverse side. Further Hanif and Ramji Lal though armed with farsa but they did not wield any farsa blow on him and merely stood there as a spectator, which circumstance appears to be highly improbable in the facts and circumstance of the case and creates a dent in the prosecution story. 19. The trial court has further held that even doctor, who noted the injuries on the person Veerpal pointed out that except injury No. 1, all the injuries of Veerpal are simple in nature. Even injury No. 1 is too superficial and could not necessarily be caused by firing. If the injury had been caused by pellets, some pellets could have been found in the injury but no X-ray was done. Even the doctor, who had examined the injuries has opined that the said injuries could be manipulated/manufactured. Admittedly, accused-respondents are said to have assaulted the victim, who were armed with lethal weapons like farsa, ballam, lathi and country made pistol but none of the injuries found on the person of the victim is grievous in nature and even the ballam is said to be used from the reverse side, as such, the prosecution story is found to be highly doubtful, on the basis of which, the accused-respondents are liable to be acquitted. Furthermore, firing was made only from a distance of 2-3 paces after extending their hands, yet only a grazing injury is said to have been caused to the victim, which in the facts and circumstances of the case appears to be highly improbable and not worth credence. 20. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has submitted that the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, who are injured witnesses, inspires confidence and as such, their testimony cannot be lightly discarded. The assailants were known to witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 and, as such, in the moon light they have been identified to have caused injuries. The medical examination report also corroborates the prosecution story and injury No. 1 caused to Veerpal cannot be self inflicted and therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside. 21. The medical examination report also corroborates the prosecution story and injury No. 1 caused to Veerpal cannot be self inflicted and therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court is wholly illegal and liable to be set aside. 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that Veerpal was an accused in an attempt to murder case of Manik, father of Edal, however, only about one and a half month back, he was acquitted in the said case and after his acquittal Veerpal in order to settle his scores and to teach a lesson to Edal and his witnesses, concocted the present prosecution story and by manufacturing the injuries falsely implicated the accused respondents in the said case. Even witnesses of the aforesaid case and their relatives have been falsely implicated in the instant case. He has further submitted that the manner, in which, incident is said to have taken place and the injuries, which is said to have been caused to the injured do not match and infact are self inflicted, manipulated and manufactured, just with an intention to falsely implicate the accused-respondent as held by the trial court. 22. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents has further submitted that only one fire arm injury is said to have been received by Veerpal on his head when he bent down to rescue him, however if we go through the nature of the said injuries then possibility of said injury being manufactured or manipulated or self inflicted cannot be ruled out. Admittedly, even according to the statement of the witnesses, a very little blood oozed out from the said wound, which in normal course is not possible particularly when he is said to have been hit by a fire arm causing a pellet injury hitting his head. Even the doctor in his statement has stated that the said injury could be manufactured or manipulated. 23. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent has further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-2 and PW-3 regarding manner of incident. Accused Hanif and Habib are cousins and Shamshad is their nephew. Since Habib was a witness in the case under Section 307 IPC and, as such, they have been falsely implicated. 23. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent has further submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of PW-2 and PW-3 regarding manner of incident. Accused Hanif and Habib are cousins and Shamshad is their nephew. Since Habib was a witness in the case under Section 307 IPC and, as such, they have been falsely implicated. Even Edal and Ramji Lal are also cousins and were on inimical terms with Veerpal as he was prosecuted for the offence of attempt to murder of Manik, father of Edal in which Habib was a witness and in the backdrop of the said circumstance, the accused respondent has been falsely implicated. 24. The trial court after making a detail discussion and considering each and every aspect of the matter, has rightly recorded the finding of acquittal, which as per settled proposition of law, cannot be said to be perverse, illegal and impossible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several of its decision. 25. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the evidence adduced before the trial court, the prosecution case is that in the night at 11-30 p.m. Accused-persons, who were six in numbers reached at the khalian of the victim Veerpal and a shot was fired by accused-respondent Khajan, however, it missed the target, though it is said to have been fired from a distance of 2-3 paces. Moreover, the victim Veerpal have been assaulted by Habib with lathi and Edal from the reverse side of the ballam, which injuries are too superficial. It is further stated that on the exhortation of Hanif and Ramji Lal as per the statement of PW-2, Shamshad opened fire, which hit him on his head though PW-2 in his statement stated that all the accused persons exhorted to open fire. It is further stated that servant Ranvir was also assaulted, who too received simple injury on his person. 26. Now when we go through the injuries of the two injured persons, we find that their injuries are simple in nature and even as per the doctor opinion, the injuries may be manipulated, manufactured or self inflicted. It is further stated that servant Ranvir was also assaulted, who too received simple injury on his person. 26. Now when we go through the injuries of the two injured persons, we find that their injuries are simple in nature and even as per the doctor opinion, the injuries may be manipulated, manufactured or self inflicted. Only an injury said to be caused on the head of the victim Veerpal by firing from a country made pistol is noteworthy, however if we carefully look to the nature of the said injury, it also appears to be manipulated as admittedly even according to the prosecution own case, a very little blood oozed out from the said wound, which in our opinion, is not possible looking to the firearm injury allegedly caused to him. Had the said injury been caused by a pellet hitting his head, then blood would have considerably oozed out but even according to the prosecution own case, a very little blood oozed out, which neither fell on his clothes nor any blood was found on the cot nor any pellet or wad was recovered at the place of incident. To quote: ^^;g >xM+k djhc 5&6 feuV gqvk Fkk pkjikbZ ;k igus gq, diM+ks ij [kwu ugha fxjk Fkk esjs lj dh pksV ls FkksM+k lk [kwu fudyk Fkk ;g eSaus ugha ns[kk fd ekSds ij NjsZ fxjs Fks ;k ugha eSaus [kks[kk dkjrwl Hkh ugha ns[kkA** The said circumstance particularly creates a serious dent in the prosecution story and, in our opinion, makes it highly doubtful as held by the trial court. 27. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution own case, victim Veerpal was an accused in an attempt to murder case of Manik father of Edal, in which, very recently about one month back, he was acquitted of the said charge and the possibility that in order to settle personal scores and teach a lesson to Edal son of Manik and the witnesses of the said case, who have also been made an accused in the instant case and their close relatives have been falsely implicated. It is well settled principle of law that prior enmity cuts both ways. It may be motive for the commission of the crime but at the same time can well be used for false implication. It is well settled principle of law that prior enmity cuts both ways. It may be motive for the commission of the crime but at the same time can well be used for false implication. Thus, in the backdrop of the said facts and circumstances, false implication of the accused-respondents cannot be ruled out. 28. The trial court by impugned judgment and order has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has passed an order acquitting the accused, which in our opinion is just, proper and legal. It is well settled principle of law that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, which further has been concretised by recording the finding of acquittal against the accused-respondent. 29. The law with regard to interference by the Appellate Court is very well crystallized. Unless the finding of acquittal is found to be perverse or impossible, interference with the same would not be warranted. Though, there are a catena of judgments on the issue, we will only refer to two judgments, which are as reproduced below: “13. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016) 4 SCC 397, the Supreme Court has held that: “In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Appellate Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded.” 14. Similar, in case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that: “No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. Similar, in case of Harljan Bhala Teja vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 12 SCC 665 , the Supreme Court has held that: “No doubt, where, on appreciation of evidence on record, two views are possible, and the trial court has taken a view of acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the same. However, this does not mean that in all the cases where the trial court has recorded acquittal, the same should not be interfered with, even if the view is perverse. Where the view taken by the trial court is against the weight of evidence on record, or perverse, it is always open far the appellate court to express the right conclusion after re-appreciating the evidence if the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record, and convict the accused.” 30. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “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, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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. 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. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not distrub the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 31. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. 3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 32. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court. 33. In view of the above settled principles of law and after examining the present case, we find that the first informant and the accused-respondents were on highly inimical terms. Even possibility of the injuries being self inflicted/manipulated or manufactured by the injured persons cannot be completely ruled out as rightly held by the trial court. All the injuries caused to two injured Veerpal and Ranvir are simple in nature. Even possibility of the injuries being self inflicted/manipulated or manufactured by the injured persons cannot be completely ruled out as rightly held by the trial court. All the injuries caused to two injured Veerpal and Ranvir are simple in nature. Even the injury on his head cannot be caused in the manner as described by the injured witness Veerpal by a fire arm hitting his head only a very little blood coming out from his wound creates serious dent in the prosecution story and makes it unreliable. The possibility of the said injury being manipulated as opined by the doctor (PW-1) cannot be ruled out. 34. In our opinion, the trial court has passed well reasoned and detailed order, which in view of settled principle of law regarding reversal of acquittal needs no interference by this Court. The view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse, impossible and illegal and, as such, present Government Appeal filed by the State has no force and is accordingly dismissed. 35. Trial court's record be remitted back forthwith.