JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ram Babu Sharma alongwith Mr. Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. forState-opposite party-1. 2. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Budaun in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2016 (State Vs. Chander and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 256 of 2015, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Gunnaur, District- Sambhal and connected Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2016 (State vs. Chander) relating to Case Crime No. 381 of 2015, under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, whereby the accused-opposite parties 2to 4 have been acquitted of the charges framed against them. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 01-08-2015, first informant/ appellant Satyapal son of Chhote Lal, resident of Akbarpur, Police Station Gunnaur, District Badaun, submitted a written report (Tehrir) (Exhibit Ka -1) stating therein that in the morning of 01.08.2015, there was a quarrel between his brother Jabar Singh and the children of Chander son of Lekhraj, of the village. When his brother, Jabar Singh went to complain about this to Chander, Kanhaiya and Manveer both sons of Chander, they started quarreling. Hearing the same, his mother, Mrs Savitri, and he reached the spot and tried to intervene. Kanhaiya shot at his mother on the head with a .315 bore pistol at around 10:00 am. When his brother Jabar Singh and he challenged the accused, they fled into the forest. His mother, Mrs Savitri, was seriously injured. His wife, Sunita, witnessed the incident. The gunfire caused widespread panic. The residents of house went into hiding and those nearby closed their doors. 4. On the aforementioned written report (Ext. Ka-1) of the appellant, an F.I.R. was registered on 01.08.2015 against the accused persons as Case Crime No. 256 of 2015, under Sections 307 I.P.C., Police Station- Gunnaur, District- Sambhal. The injured Smt. Savitri Devi was got medically treated and on 02.08.2015 she died. Thereafter, Section 307 IPC was converted into Section 302 IPC. During investigation, on 06.10.2015, one country made pistol was recovered on the pointing of the accused Chander in Case Crime No. 256 of 2015. As such on 06.10.2015 Case Crime No. 381 of 2015 was registered against accused Chander under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, which was entered in G.D. No. 20 at09:30 hours. 5. During investigation, on 06.10.2015, one country made pistol was recovered on the pointing of the accused Chander in Case Crime No. 256 of 2015. As such on 06.10.2015 Case Crime No. 381 of 2015 was registered against accused Chander under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, which was entered in G.D. No. 20 at09:30 hours. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 IPC was submitted against accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 and a separate Charge-sheet under Section 3/25 of Arms Act was submitted against accused Chander. Thereafter, the cases were committed to the Court of Sessions. After hearing both the parties, charges were framed against charge-sheeted accused on 30.06.2016, under Sections 302/34 IPC and separate charge under Section 3/25 of Arms Act was also framed against accused Chander. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove it's case, prosecution adduced PW-1 Satyapal Singh, (informant and eye witness), PW-2 Jabar Singh (eye witness), PW-3 SI Ayyub Khan (police witness of inquest), PW-4 constable Girish Chandra (formal police witness), PW-5 Dr. Ikrar Ahmad (Autopsy Surgeon), PW-6 constable Jauni Kumar (formal police witness), PW-7 Smt. Sunita (eye witness), PW-8 retired DSP Sri RK Chauhan (2 nd I.O.), PW-9 retired SI Sri Satyaveer Singh (1 st I.O.) and PW-10 HC Vikas Kumar (police witness). The witnesses adduced by the prosecution have given their respective oral evidence and also proved 23 prosecution papers and 04 material objects, which were marked as exhibits. The same are tabulated herein below:- 7. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/ incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to the accused – opposite parties 2 to 4, in question answer form for their version of the occurrence as per mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the suggestions put to them by repeatedly saying that it is false or they have been falsely implicated or the prosecution case is false or the depositions of prosecution witnesses are false. They further stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to village enmity. 8. By the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2025, Court below has acquitted the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 of the charges framed against them under Sections 302/34 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. 9. They further stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated due to village enmity. 8. By the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2025, Court below has acquitted the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 of the charges framed against them under Sections 302/34 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. 9. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by Court below, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by appellant, who is the first informant of case. 10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the impugned judgment is illegal, erroneous and, therefore, liable to be set-aside by this Court. He further submits that Court below without appreciating the evidence adduced by the appellant, has illegally and erroneously, acquitted the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 of the charges levelled against them. PW-2 and PW-7 are eye witnesses of the incident, who have supported the evidence given by appellant as PW-1. The prosecution version of the occurrence also stands corroborated by the medical evidence, but Court below by ignoring the same, has arrived at the conclusion that no case as alleged by the prosecution, is made out against the accused opposite parties, hence, wrongly acquitted them. As such, the impugned judgment is illegal and perverse and therefore liable to be set-aside by this Court. 11. Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 on the other hand has vehemently opposed the present appeal. He submits that the impugned judgment passed by Court below does not suffer from any illegality of law or fact much less a legal error so as to warrant interference by this Court. Court below has examined the prosecution case in the light of the evidence on record threadbare without leaving any aspect of the matter untouched. Prosecution has failed to prove that deceased sustained firearm injuries. Court below has thus, rightly acquitted the accused. Lastly, it has been argued that no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment is made out. Learned A.G.A. thus urged for dismissal of the present appeal. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and perused the record. 13. The trial Court while acquitting the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 by means of the impugned judgment has recorded the following findings: (i) As per written report Ext. Ka-1, accused Kanhaiya shot at deceased Mrs. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and perused the record. 13. The trial Court while acquitting the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 by means of the impugned judgment has recorded the following findings: (i) As per written report Ext. Ka-1, accused Kanhaiya shot at deceased Mrs. Savitri on her head at around 10:00 AM with a .315 Bore country made pistol. (ii) Satyapal PW-1, during investigation, gave statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer that accused Kanhaiya shot at his mother on head with a .315 Bore country made pistol at around 10:00 AM. (iii) Sub Inspector Ayyub Khan PW-3 has proved the inquest report as Ext. Ka-2, wherein, witnesses of inquest (Panchas) concluded that the deceased Smt. Savitri died from gunshot injury and a large bullet whole is visible behind the left ear of deceased near her head and neck. Deceased’s sons informant Satyapal and Jabar Singh were included as witnesses of inquest (Panchas). (iv) Satyapal PW-1, in his examination- in-chief, had deposed that at the time of incident, accused Chander struck his mother on her head with an iron rod and accused Manveer also struck with a stick. On the instigation of Manveer and Chander, accused Kanhaiya with intention to kill her, fired a shot at her from a distance of 15-20 paces with .315 Bore country made pistol. Bullet struck his mother on her head, on left side and went through. During cross examination, he stated that bullet passed through and through immediately after hitting her. He further stated that at the same time his mother was struck by an iron rod on the place where gunshot injury (bullet wound) was caused. (v) Jabar Singh PW-2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused Kanhaiya fired at his mother Smt. Savitri with an intention to kill her and accused Chander hit her with an iron rod. During cross examination, he stated that only one shot was fired and that shot hit on his mother’s head. Bullet entered from one side and came out from the other side. (vi) Sunita PW-7 (wife of informant Satyapal PW-1) stated in her examination-in-chief that accused Chander hit her mother-in-law with an iron rod with an intention to kill her, accused Kanhaiya fired at her by a country made pistol and accused Manveer struck her with a stick. Bullet entered from one side and came out from the other side. (vi) Sunita PW-7 (wife of informant Satyapal PW-1) stated in her examination-in-chief that accused Chander hit her mother-in-law with an iron rod with an intention to kill her, accused Kanhaiya fired at her by a country made pistol and accused Manveer struck her with a stick. (vii) Dr. Ikrar Ahmad PW-5, Autopsy Surgeon, has proved post mortem report of the deceased Savitri as Ext. Ka-11. This witness found two ante mortem injuries on the body of deceased. First injury was lacerated wound measuring 4.5 cm x 2cm deep behind left ear. The margins of wound were irregular. There was no blackening or tattooing. There was an underlying bone fracture inside the wound. Second ante mortem injury was a swelling measuring 6cm x 3cm located on lower jaw and chin on the left side. There was a fracture on the lower jaw. This witness in his cross- examination has stated that he neither found bullet nor pellet in injury no. 1. There was no blackening or tattooing. In his opinion, this injury was not a gunshot injury and this injury could not have been caused by bullet. If injury no. 1 had been caused before and thereafter a stick is being hit on injury no. 1 even then injury no. 1 could not be caused. Injury no. 1 could have been caused if a person accidentally fell on hard surface or was struck by a hard object. This witness specifically stated that injury no. 1 is unlikely to have been even caused by friction of a bullet. No firearm injury of entry or exit was found by this witness on the body of deceased. (viii) As per testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, deceased Savitri was hit by bullet and at the same time, she was also struck by an iron rod and a stick. If that be so, the deceased’s body would have sustained 03 ante mortem injuries i.e. one firearm injury and 02 from stick and iron rod respectively. Autopsy Surgeon has clearly stated that deceased’s ante mortem injuries were not caused by gunshot as no bullet or pellet was found inside the injuries sustained by the deceased on her head and there was no blackening or tattooing around said injury. There was no injury consistent with entry wound or exit wound of firearm in the deceased’s body. Autopsy Surgeon has clearly stated that deceased’s ante mortem injuries were not caused by gunshot as no bullet or pellet was found inside the injuries sustained by the deceased on her head and there was no blackening or tattooing around said injury. There was no injury consistent with entry wound or exit wound of firearm in the deceased’s body. If a person is injured by a gunshot and bullet passes through the body, in that eventuality, deceased’s body is left with an entry wound and an exit wound. Therefore, the manner and weapon used by the accused as stated by prosecution witnesses regarding injuries inflicted on the deceased Savitri are not consistent with the opinion recorded by Autopsy Surgeon in Ext. Ka-11 i.e. post mortem report of the deceased. While relying upon judgments of Apex Court in State of Bihar vs. Bishwanath Rai and others, AIR 1997 SC 3818 , Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitra and another vs. Sunil Chandra Ray and another, 1960 SCR (3) 1, Mani Ram and others vs. State of U.P., 1994 supp. (2) SCC 289 and Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 493, Court below found the prosecution story to be doubtful. (ix) Statements of informant Satyapal was not found to be consistent at different stages of the evidence. Jabar Singh PW-2 in his cross- examination has stated that he too sustained injuries in the incident but he did not undergo medical examination. This witness in his statement has only implicated accused Chander and Kanhaiya and excluded Manveer. However, informant Satyapal PW-1 has stated that no one except her mother sustained injuries. (x) Savita PW-7 in her cross-examination has stated that she was also injured by stick but did not seek medical treatment for her minor injuries. (xi) Witnesses of fact presented by prosecution i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have not deposed in accordance with prosecution story. The prosecution story remained constant during investigation, but was changed during trial. Earlier only one accused Kanhaiya was shown to be involved in the incident but later on the involvement of accused Chander and Manveer was also shown in the incident. During trial, Jabar Singh PW-2 and Sunita PW-7 gave statement that they too have sustained injuries during incident. However, informant Satyapal PW-1 has clearly stated that no one except his mother sustained injuries. During trial, Jabar Singh PW-2 and Sunita PW-7 gave statement that they too have sustained injuries during incident. However, informant Satyapal PW-1 has clearly stated that no one except his mother sustained injuries. The prosecution story was found to be continuously improved upon, to make it more serious, by showing involvement of more and more accused. Prosecution also tried to show that PW-2 and PW-7 also sustained injuries. (xii) As per prosecution story in addition to informant, 03 other pe rsons were present at the place of incident i.e. 02 women and 01 man. Even if there was a dispute between two parties it is difficult to believe why 03 accused would attack a woman alone while two sons of woman stood there as mute spectators. Normally, if someone attacks an elderly woman, his sons would undoubtedly come forward to save her. This is not the case in hand. The initial story against the accused was to the effect that Kanhaiya shot deceased Savitri. However, post mortem report showed no bullet injury. Later during trial, evidence was presented that in addition to bullet injury, accused Chander inflicted injury with an iron rod and accused Manveer with a stick. Thus prosecution evidence was not found to be credible. (xiii) Recovery of country made pistol and empty cartridge was alleged to be made on the pointing of accused Chander from staircase inside his house. Despite this, no public witness was called. The prosecution did not even prove the original FIR in court regarding recovery of country made pistol and empty cartridge. Simultaneously, iron rod and .315 Bore country made pistol were also recovered at the pointing out of accused Chander, but the iron rod was not presented before court. As per the prosecution story, it was accused Kanhaiya who fired by a country made pistol on the head of deceased. However, surprisingly, pistol and empty cartridge was recovered on the pointing of accused Chander and not at the pointing of accused Kanhaiya. Recovery of country made pistol and empty cartridge was thus found to be suspicious. (xiv) Serious contradictions were found by Court below in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witnesses have given different evidence regarding the incident at every stage. There was no consistency in their testimonies, rendering the prosecution narrative suspicious. Recovery of country made pistol and empty cartridge was thus found to be suspicious. (xiv) Serious contradictions were found by Court below in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witnesses have given different evidence regarding the incident at every stage. There was no consistency in their testimonies, rendering the prosecution narrative suspicious. Prosecution has failed to prove that accused Chander, Kanhaiya and Manveer murdered deceased Savitri in furtherance of a common intention. Prosecution has also failed to prove the recovery of illegal country made pistol and cartridge. 14. After recording above findings, Court below came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus acquitted them vide judgment dated 24.09.2025. 15. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views are possible, one supporting acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by Court below. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibahi and others vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 602 , which is most appropriately applicable to the facts of the present case. Paragraph-9 of the report is relevant for the controversy in hand and is accordingly, reproduced herein-below:- " Law is now well settled that though the Cr.P.C. does not make any distinction between the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an order of conviction or of acquittal, normally the Appellate Court does not disturb an order of acquittal in a case where two views of the evidence are reasonably possible. But the above principle of is not applicable where the approach of the trial Judge in dealing with evidence is manifestly erroneous and the conclusions drawn are wholly unreasonably and perverse. In the instant case, we find that the High Court was fully conscious and did not transgress the bounds, of its appellate powers while dealing and reversing the order of acquittal." 16. The Apex Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, which clearly reach an appeal against acquittal has observed as under: "39. In the instant case, we find that the High Court was fully conscious and did not transgress the bounds, of its appellate powers while dealing and reversing the order of acquittal." 16. The Apex Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561, which clearly reach an appeal against acquittal has observed as under: "39. 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:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) 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. 40. 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." 17. It has also been observed in above-mentioned judgment that an Appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of 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 Court below. It has further been observed that the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion, which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond all reasonable doubts and no other conclusion was possible. 18. In Gamini Bala Koteshwara Rao vs. State of Andra Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636 , it was observed that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be rare and in an exceptional circumstance. It was further held that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusion arrived at by Court below. 18. In Gamini Bala Koteshwara Rao vs. State of Andra Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 636 , it was observed that interference in an appeal against acquittal should be rare and in an exceptional circumstance. It was further held that it is open to the High Court to reappraise the evidence and conclusion arrived at by Court below. However, it is limited to those cases where the judgment of Court below was perverse. The Court further went to declare that the word "perverse", as understood in law, has been understood to mean, "against the weight of evidence". If there are two views and Court below has taken one of the views merely because another view in plausible, the Appellant Court will not be justified in interfering with the verdict of acquittal. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party 1 and upon evaluation of the impugned judgment including the reasons recorded therein, in the light of depositions of 03 prosecution witnesses of fact i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 and keeping in mind the limitations with a Court of appeal dealing with a judgment of acquittal, this Court finds that the following questions arise for consideration in present appeal:- (i). Whether conclusion drawn by Court below that prosecution has failed to prove that deceased sustained any firearm injury, is legally sustainable. (ii). Whether reasons recorded by Court below in support of it’s conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt are cogent and valid reasons or illusionary being against the weight of evidence on record, therefore, illegal and perverse. Question No. 1 (i). Whether conclusion drawn by Court below that prosecution has failed to prove that deceased sustained any firearm injury, is legally sustainable. 20. Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Ikrar Ahmad conducted post mortem of the body of deceased Savitri and has testified as PW-5. This witness found following ante mortem injuries on the body of deceased:- (i) A lacerated wound measuring 4.5 cm x 2cm skull deep behind left ear. The margins of this wound were irregular. There was no abraded colour around this wound. There was no blackening or tattooing. An underlying bone inside this wound was found fractured. (ii) A swelling measuring 6cm x 3cm on left side of lower jaw and chin.Lower jaw below this injury was found fractured. 21. PW-5 Dr. The margins of this wound were irregular. There was no abraded colour around this wound. There was no blackening or tattooing. An underlying bone inside this wound was found fractured. (ii) A swelling measuring 6cm x 3cm on left side of lower jaw and chin.Lower jaw below this injury was found fractured. 21. PW-5 Dr. Ikrar Ahmad in his cross-examination has clearly stated that no bullet or pellet was found in injury no. 1. There was no blackening or tattooing either. In his opinion, injury no. 1 was neither a bullet injury nor it could have been caused by a pellet. In his opinion, this injury could not have been caused even if injury no. 1 has been caused first by a firearm followed by the blow of stick over it. If some person accidentally falls on hard surface and his head strucks with a hard object, in that eventuality, injury no. 1 can be caused. Injury no. 1 cannot even be caused by the friction of bullet. There was no injury of entry or exit wound of firearm on the body of deceased. Testimony of this autopsy surgeon is categorical and clear that no firearm injury was found on the body of deceased. Moreover, injury no. 1 which is a lacerated wound and found on the skull of deceased, was not having any blackening or tattooing as there is no entry wound and corresponding exit wound on the skull of deceased. No bullet or pellet was found inside the skull of deceased. Therefore, in this background, said injury is neither a bullet injury nor a firearm injury. A careful analysis of the evidence of this witness makes it abundantly clear that deceased was not having any ante mortem firearm injury on her body. In our opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that deceased had sustained any firearm injury. Court below has discussed in detail regarding this aspect of alleged firearm injury in Para-25 of the impugned judgment (pages 13 and 15 of the paper book). It has rightly come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Savitri sustained any firearm injury, raising serious question mark on the prosecution story and thus, has rightly found prosecution story to be a suspicious one. Question No. 1 is accordingly answered in the affirmative. Question No. 2 (ii). It has rightly come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Savitri sustained any firearm injury, raising serious question mark on the prosecution story and thus, has rightly found prosecution story to be a suspicious one. Question No. 1 is accordingly answered in the affirmative. Question No. 2 (ii). Whether reasons recorded by Court below in support of it’s conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt or cogent and valid reasons or illusionary and against the weight of evidence on record, therefore, illegal and perverse. 22. Court below upon evaluation of prosecution witnesses of fact, finally came to the conclusion that serious contradictions have emerged in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses have not presented concrete and consistent evidence to support the prosecution narrative beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses of fact have given different evidence regarding incident at every stage. There is no consistency in their testimonies rendering the prosecution narrative suspicious. The evidence presented by prosecution does not prove that accused Chander, Kanhaiya and Manveer murdered Savitri Devi in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that illegal country made pistol and cartridge were recovered from accused Chander, as a result, Court below acquitted the accused opposite parties. 23. So far as the veracity of above reasons recorded by Court below to conclude that the guilt of accused does not stand established beyond reasonable doubt also cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The findings/reasons returned by Court below in support of above conclusion are based upon due evaluation of the allegations made in first information report in the light of evidence on record. Court below has assigned specific reasons for coming to the conclusion that no offence under any of the charging Section is made out against accused. Upon examination by us of the said findings in the light of depositions of the prosecution witnesses as noted in the impugned judgment, we could not come across any such fact on the basis of which, any of the findings qua the charging sections can be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. Infact the prosecution itself could not prove the fact that deceased sustained any firearm injury by it's own evidence. Infact the prosecution itself could not prove the fact that deceased sustained any firearm injury by it's own evidence. As such, the conclusion drawn by Court below that no criminality as alleged to have been committed by the accused-opposite parties 2 to 4 is borne out from the record is neither illegal nor perverse. 24. Out of abundant caution, we are examining the depositions of informant Satyapal PW-1, Jabar Singh PW-2 and Sunita PW-7. The informant Satyapal and Jabar Singh are real brothers and sons of deceased Savitri. Sunita is wife of informant Satyapal and daughter-in-law of deceased Savitri. 25. Informant- appellant Satyapal lodged the FIR by submitting a written report (Ext. Ka-1) at Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal. The incident is said to have taken place on 01.08.2015 and the timing of incident as reported in written report is 10:00 am. FIR was lodged within an hour of the incident i.e. by 11:00 am on 01.08.2015. 26. As per FIR, accused Chander, Kanhaiya and Manveer were quarrelling with informant’s brother Jabar Singh. Informant, his mother Savitri and his wife Sunita arrived at the spot after hearing the noise and informant’s mother Savitri when tried to intervene, at that time, accused Kanhaiya shot at his mother on her head. In the FIR, no role other than quarrelling has been assigned to accused Channder and Manveer. No weapon whatsoever has been assigned to both of these accused. A clear and categorical case has been put forward in the FIR that accused Kanhaiya shot at Smt. Savitri on her head with a .315 Bore country made pistol. 27. Informant- appellant Satyapal in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated that accused Kanhaiya shot at his mother on her head with .315 Bore country made pistol but he did not state anything regarding accused Chander or Manveer that these two accused had also inflicted any injury on the deceased with the help of an iron rod or stick. Similar were the statements of PW-2 and PW-7 during course of investigation. 28. Therefore, from the very beginning, the prosecution brought out a specific story wherein it has been specifically alleged that accused Kanhaiya shot at Savitri on her head with .315 Bore country made pistol and she died on account of gunshot injury. Similar were the statements of PW-2 and PW-7 during course of investigation. 28. Therefore, from the very beginning, the prosecution brought out a specific story wherein it has been specifically alleged that accused Kanhaiya shot at Savitri on her head with .315 Bore country made pistol and she died on account of gunshot injury. This story continued even while narrating opinion of inquest witnesses and thereafter in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses of fact during course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. 29. Oral and documentary medical evidence has belied this prosecution version of the incident as narrated in FIR and continued during investigation as no firearm injury was found on the body of deceased Savitri. 30. However, after post mortem report was prepared, it became abundantly clear that no gunshot injury was found on the body of deceased, therefore, prosecution witnesses who are sons and daughter-in- law of deceased developed a new story wherein it has been alleged that accused Kanhaiya caused through and through gunshot injury by a .315 Bore country made pistol and simultaneously accused Chander stuck deceased with an iron rod and accused Manveer struck her with a stick. 31. During trial, PW-1 Satyapal in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused Chander hit his mother on her head with an iron rod and accused Manveer also hit her with a stick. On the instigation of accused Manveer and Chander, Kanhaiya fired a shot from a .315 Bore country made pistol and the bullet hit his mother on the left side of her head and went out. In his cross-examination he stated that bullet immediately went out after hitting and iron rod was struck on firearm injury. 32. Jabar Singh PW-2 in his examination-in-chief has stated that accused Kanhaiya fired a shot by his country made pistol at his mother Savitri and accused Chander hit her with an iron rod. 33. Sunita PW-7 in her examination-in-chief has stated that accused Chander hit her mother-in-law with an iron rod and accused Kanhaiya fired from a country made pistol. Accused Manveer also attacked with a stick. 34. As per depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, the bullet fired from a country made pistol passed through head of deceased Savitri after it struck her. Sunita PW-7 in her examination-in-chief has stated that accused Chander hit her mother-in-law with an iron rod and accused Kanhaiya fired from a country made pistol. Accused Manveer also attacked with a stick. 34. As per depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7, the bullet fired from a country made pistol passed through head of deceased Savitri after it struck her. At this juncture, it is very important to observe that informant PW-1 Satyapal was a witness of inquest and in the inquest report (Ext. Ka-2), all the witnesses of inquest have stated that Savitri Devi died on account of a gunshot injury. 35. The very prosecution story that the deceased sustained gunshot injury even if it is presumed to be a through and through gunshot injury is completely falsified by the medical evidence available on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that deceased suffered any firearm injury. 36. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses of fact PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have not only deviated from the basic prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR and have tried to create a different story by alleging specific role of accused Chander and Manveer in the occurrence and tried to explain that the injury of lacerated wound found on skull of deceased by stating that deceased was also struck with an iron rod after being hit by a bullet. This new narrative which has been placed on record only during the course of trial is a clear deviation from the basic prosecution story as unfolded in FIR. We may point out that though the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the prosecution case, but it does disclose the basic prosecution case. (Vide Manoj and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 4, SCC 268, Subhash Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttrakhand, (2009) 6 SCC 641 and Achhar Singh Vs. State of H.P. (2021) 5 SCC 543 ). The witnesses have themselves departed from the basic prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR for which no plausible explanation has come forward. 37. PW-2 and PW-7 in their cross examination have stated that they have also sustained injuries during the incident. State of H.P. (2021) 5 SCC 543 ). The witnesses have themselves departed from the basic prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR for which no plausible explanation has come forward. 37. PW-2 and PW-7 in their cross examination have stated that they have also sustained injuries during the incident. However, no such narrative was either made in FIR nor was it mentioned by these witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. whereas informant - appellant Satyapal PW-1 has clearly stated that no other person other than his mother got injured in the incident. Thus, it is apparently clear that there are serious contradictions in the depositions of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 qua the occurence. 38. PW-2 Jabar Singh has alleged the role of accused Kanhaiya and Chander only and has not alleged any role of accused Manveer. PW-2 has not stated anything whether accused Manveer also attacked or not and what weapon, if any, was used by accused Manveer in the incident. 39. As per prosecution story, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 are alleged to be eye witnesses. Mother of PW-1 and PW-2 is alleged to have sustained injuries in their presence. As per prosecution story both these witnesses stood mute spectators while their elderly mother was being attacked by accused. In this background when they have allegedly witnessed the incident as a mute spectators, the version put forth in the written report (Ext. Ka-1) as well as inquest report that only accused Kanhaiya shot at their mother and caused firearm injury on her head, did not find support from the post mortem report then these witnesses developed a new story of assault upon their mother by accused Chander and Manveer with an iron rod and stick, while still maintaining that their mother was also shot and had received through and through gunshot injury. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 have tried to modulate and improve their versions while deposing on oath. Their testimonies are full of embellishments and contradictions. Belated introduction of accused Chander and Manveer by alleging their active participation in crime in question with an iron rod and stick and thereby causing injuries with these new weapons of offence to deceased Savitri, appears to be a clear manipulation, devised to implicate the accused- opposite parties 3 and 4. Their testimonies are full of embellishments and contradictions. Belated introduction of accused Chander and Manveer by alleging their active participation in crime in question with an iron rod and stick and thereby causing injuries with these new weapons of offence to deceased Savitri, appears to be a clear manipulation, devised to implicate the accused- opposite parties 3 and 4. Apex Court in Govind Mandavi vs. State of Chhattishgarh, 2025 INSC 1399 , found vital omission in First Information Report (as in present case) and held that such an omission completely impeaches the credibility of the prosecution case. Moreover, the medical evidence belies the basic prosecution story that the deceased sustained gunshot injury. Therefore, prima facie, presence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 on the spot at the time of incident also seems to be doubtful and their depositions lacks consistency credibility and reliability. 40. Moreover, as per prosecution story, it was accused Kanhaiya who had shot at deceased Savitri but surprisingly the alleged illegal country made pistol has been recovered on the pointing of accused Chander. No independent witness of recovery has been produced by the prosecution. Even iron rod allegedly used in the incident and allegedly recovered at the pointing of accused Chander was not produced before Court, therefore, the alleged recovery also seems to be a suspicious one. 41. We are, therefore, of the opinion that reasons recorded by Court below in respect of it’s conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt are cogent and valid reasons. The same are not illusionary but logically drawn upon the appreciation of the evidence on record. Question No. 2 is also answered accordingly. 42. In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment so as to interfere with the findings returned by Court below. The conclusion drawn by Court below is the outcome of artificial appreciation of the evidence on record. No misreading or omission could be pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant. Being the last Court of fact, we have ourselves evaluated the evidence on record to find out whether there is any perversity in the impugned judgment i.e. Court below has either ignored any vital evidence or misconstrued any material evidence. No misreading or omission could be pointed out by the learned counsel for appellant. Being the last Court of fact, we have ourselves evaluated the evidence on record to find out whether there is any perversity in the impugned judgment i.e. Court below has either ignored any vital evidence or misconstrued any material evidence. However, we could not gather any new fact from the record nor could we find that Court below has misconstrued any evidence on record so as to conclude that the conclusion drawn by Court below is against the weight of evidence on record. It thus, cannot be said that only the view consistent with the guilt of accused is possible as per the evidence on record. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to entertain the present appeal filed under Section 413 BNSS, which consequently fails and is, accordingly dismissed.