JUDGMENT : Sanjay Parihar, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the court of Pr. Sessions Judge Bhaderwah (hereinafter referred as “ the Trial Court ”), in favour of the respondents in case FIR No. 135/2003 arising out of offences under Sections 302, 307, 109 and 149 RPC and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act, relating to an occurrence dated 09.11.2003 at about 10:30 AM. The appellant, namely the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, now Union Territory, seeks reversal of the acquittal primarily on the ground that the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and the law, and that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence which, according to the appellant, clearly established the complicity of the respondents in the commission of the offence. It has been urged that the statements of PW-1 Wali Mohd. (father/husband of the deceased), PW-4 Mehboob Ahmad, PW-11 Nazir Ahmad (injured) and PW-7 Lal Din, when read conjointly, sufficiently corroborate the medical evidence proving that the deceased had died due to firearm injuries. It is contended that the wife and son of PW-1 were brutally done to death by the respondents, who were armed and were functioning as members of the Special Task Force and Village Defence Committee, and that the Trial Court ignored the testimony of these witnesses without any cogent or plausible reason. On this premise, the appellant prays that the impugned judgment be set aside and the respondents be convicted. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.11.2003 at about 1300 hours, Police Station Gandoh received information that respondents namely Mukhtyar Ahmad, SPO No. 3095, and Maqsood Ahmad, SPO No. 3074, both sons of respondent No. 1, together with respondent No. 1 himself and VDC members namely Shoukat Ali, Mehboob Ahmad and Inayatullah, all residents of village Kandeli Chilli, Tehsil Gandoh, District Doda, acting in furtherance of common intention and conspiracy with their father and his brothers namely Mehraj-ud-Din, Ayoub Khan, Bashir Ahmad and Liyakat Ali, launched a murderous assault on account of previous enmity and fired upon Mst. Shahina Begum and Abdul Gani, wife and son respectively of complainant Wali Mohd., resulting in their death on the spot, besides causing grievous firearm injury to Nazir Ahmad, who was shifted to hospital. Shahina Begum and Abdul Gani, wife and son respectively of complainant Wali Mohd., resulting in their death on the spot, besides causing grievous firearm injury to Nazir Ahmad, who was shifted to hospital. On the basis of this information, FIR No. 135/2003 came to be registered and all ten accused were arrested from their respective houses. 3. During investigation, one SLR rifle bearing No. 16146365 with two magazines and three live cartridges was allegedly recovered from accused Sabir Khan; one rifle from Mukhtyar Ahmad; one SLR with four cartridges from Maqsood Ahmad; one rifle butt along with a magazine and seven live cartridges from Mehboob Ahmad; and one bolt action rifle with one magazine and eight live cartridges from Inayatullah, a VDC member. Besides this, 345 live cartridges stated to have been stored in a box were also recovered at the instance of Sabir Khan. Investigation further revealed that there existed a long-standing dispute between respondent No. 1 and PW-1 Wali Mohd. concerning possession of a gharat (water mill), and that several civil and criminal cases had been instituted by the parties against each other, thereby giving rise to deep- rooted animosity. It was also alleged that on the date of occurrence, and even prior thereto, the respondents had demolished the gharat of the brother of PW-1, and it was in the background of this land and water-mill dispute that the incident had taken place when the deceased were proceeding for Hilla Sheri, i.e. cutting and carrying grass, and were fired upon on the way, resulting in their death. Upon completion of investigation, challan came to be presented against respondents Mohd. Sabir Khan, Mukhtyar Ahmad, Maqsood Ahmad, Mehboob Ahmad and Inayatullah before the Court of competent jurisdiction, from where the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah. By the impugned judgment, all the respondents came to be acquitted. 4. The appellant has assailed the judgment of acquittal on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to correctly appreciate the testimony of material witnesses, particularly PW-1 Wali Mohd., PW-4 Mehboob Ahmad, PW-11 Nazir Ahmad and PW-7 Lal Din, who, according to the prosecution, had witnessed the occurrence and whose statements ought not to have been discarded. 5. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the so-called eye-witnesses projected by the prosecution are closely related to the deceased and no truly independent witness has supported the prosecution version. 5. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the so-called eye-witnesses projected by the prosecution are closely related to the deceased and no truly independent witness has supported the prosecution version. It has further been contended that some of the prosecution witnesses have specifically stated that the fatal shots were fired by Shoukat Ali and Liyakat Ali, who were neither charge-sheeted nor brought to trial, and that the case, therefore, has not been investigated in a fair and complete manner. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the weapons allegedly allotted to the respondents and the firearm injuries sustained by the deceased. No empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence, and the Scientific Officer/Ballistic Expert was never examined in Court. Thus, according to the respondents, neither the ballistic material nor the alleged forensic opinion can be read in evidence. It has additionally been urged that the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court reinforces the presumption of innocence in favour of the respondents and, in an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings are manifestly perverse or wholly unreasonable, the same ought not to be disturbed. The settled principle that where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail, has also been invoked. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record with due care. 7. Since much emphasis has been laid by the appellant upon the testimony of PW-1 Wali Mohd., PW-4 Mehboob Ahmad, PW-11 Nazir Ahmad, PW-7 Lal Din, PW-10 Mohd. Hussain and PW-13 Shah Mohd., it becomes necessary to briefly notice the substance of their depositions. 8. PW-1 Wali Mohd., the husband of deceased Shahina Begum and father of deceased Abdul Gani, was examined by the Investigating Officer on the very date of occurrence, i.e. 09.11.2003. He stated that on the day of occurrence he was on his way to Chilli when he heard sounds of gunfire near the house of PW-7 Lal Din. On returning to the place of occurrence, he found the bodies of his wife and son lying there and also saw Nazir Ahmad in an injured condition. He admitted the existence of civil and criminal litigation between him and respondent Sabir Khan concerning the water mill dispute and stated that some of those cases had been decided in favour of respondent No. 1. He admitted the existence of civil and criminal litigation between him and respondent Sabir Khan concerning the water mill dispute and stated that some of those cases had been decided in favour of respondent No. 1. He further admitted that the water mill of his brother Mohd. Hussain had been demolished by the Revenue Department pursuant to the said dispute. He also stated that one of his sons, namely Shabir Ahmad, was a militant, and admitted that on the same day after occurrence, the house of respondent No. 1 had been burnt, in respect whereof a separate criminal case had been registered in which he, his brother Mohd. Hussain and others had been arrayed as accused. Though he claimed that the deceased had been killed by the respondents due to previous enmity, he did not state that he had personally seen the respondents firing upon the deceased. Rather, he named PW-7 Lal Din, PW-2 Rukam Din and PW-10 Mohd. Hussain as persons who had witnessed the occurrence. In cross-examination, he admitted the presence of 20-25 militants in the area and also admitted that the Army, Police and STF were operating nearby. 9. PW-10 Mohd. Hussain stated that when deceased Shahina Begum had some altercation with respondent No. 1, the latter asked his sons, who were working with STF and VDC, to bring their rifles, whereafter firing was opened. He further stated that Mukhtyar Ahmad raised the slogan “Allah-hu-Akbar” and thereafter firing started. Significantly, he also stated that Shoukat Ali and Liyakat Ali were firing from the rooftop and that it was their firing which hit the deceased. According to him, 50 to 60 shots were fired. He admitted previous enmity with the respondents and further admitted that respondent Sabir Khan had earlier been attacked by militants and, therefore, had been provided security. He also admitted that one of the sons of Sabir Khan had been killed by militants. 10. PW-2 Rukam Din was declared hostile. PW-3 Ibrahim did not support the prosecution. PW-5 Haisam Din also denied the prosecution version. 11. PW-9 Mohd. Aslam deposed that while he was engaged in operating a wool-shredding machine at Kandeli, he saw people running in panic due to firing by militants, which was initially responded to by security forces, and in that cross-firing two persons unfortunately got killed. He stated that PW-11 Nazir Ahmad and PW-10 Mohd. 11. PW-9 Mohd. Aslam deposed that while he was engaged in operating a wool-shredding machine at Kandeli, he saw people running in panic due to firing by militants, which was initially responded to by security forces, and in that cross-firing two persons unfortunately got killed. He stated that PW-11 Nazir Ahmad and PW-10 Mohd. Hussain were near the demolished mill at the relevant time. He too admitted that respondent Sabir Khan had been attacked by militants on earlier occasions. According to him, the present case was lodged against the respondents because militants active in the area had pressurized the complainant to implicate them. He stated that the deceased had died in cross-firing and not by any deliberate act of the respondents. He further claimed to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 8 to 10 metres. 12. PW-11 Nazir Ahmad, the injured witness, stated that on 09.11.2003 he was at his house when he heard noise from outside and, on coming out, saw respondents Sabir Khan, Maqsood Ahmad, Mukhtyar Ahmad, Shoukat Ali and Liyakat Ali firing, while Mehboob Ahmad was carrying a danda. According to him, they were firing towards the wife and son of the complainant and both of them were killed. When he questioned them, he too was shot at and fell down. He was then taken first to Chilli hospital and thereafter to Gandoh hospital. He stated that three rifles had been given to the respondents as VDC members and two rifles because Mukhtyar Ahmad and Maqsood Ahmad were working with STF. He, however, also stated that he had not made any statement to the police. He further admitted that Liyakat Ali and Shoukat Ali, who were sons of respondent No. 1, were also involved but had not been prosecuted. He stated that he had received a gunshot injury below the abdomen. In cross- examination, he admitted that his house was situated at a distance of 2-3 zareeb from the place of occurrence and that firing continued for about one hour, though he could not state how many injuries had been received by the deceased. He denied militant firing but admitted that one of his brothers Ayub was a militant who had died in firing, and that another relative Farooq was also a militant who had died. He denied militant firing but admitted that one of his brothers Ayub was a militant who had died in firing, and that another relative Farooq was also a militant who had died. He also admitted that the house of respondent No. 1 was burnt on the same day, though he did not specify by whom. 13. PW-7 Lal Din stated that there was an argument between respondent No. 1 and the wife of the complainant and, as a consequence, the respondents opened fire resulting in the death of Shahina Begum and Abdul Gani. According to him, firing continued for about half an hour and 60 to 65 shots were fired. He stated that the police had not enquired from him and that he had made no statement to the police. He denied militant firing. He also admitted that he was an accused in the case relating to the burning of the house of respondent No. 1. 14. PW-13 Shah Mohd. stated that on 09.11.2003 firing took place at Kandeli at the hands of the respondents resulting in the death of Shahina Begum and Abdul Gani and causing injury to Nazir Ahmad. He stated that 10 accused persons had participated and that the police seized five rifles, blood-stained clothes, soil and used cartridges in his presence. He admitted that the complainant was his uncle and that he along with his father was present in his house at the time. 15. The Investigating Officer, Inspector Chanchal Singh, stated that it was PW-1 Wali Mohd. who had named the respondents as accused. According to him, information about the incident was received at around 1:00 PM. He stated that the house of respondent Sabir Khan was at a distance of 300 yards from the place where the dead bodies were lying, and that the house of injured Nazir Ahmad was at a distance of about half a kilometre from the house of accused Sabir Khan. He admitted that he had not specifically mentioned in the case diary the distance between the place of occurrence and the house of the respondents. He also admitted that Ayub, brother of injured Nazir Ahmad, and Shabir Ahmad, son of Mohd. Hussain, were militants. He denied any militant firing on the day of occurrence. 16. On a cumulative reading of the aforesaid evidence, it becomes apparent that PW-1 Wali Mohd. was not an eye-witness to the actual occurrence. He also admitted that Ayub, brother of injured Nazir Ahmad, and Shabir Ahmad, son of Mohd. Hussain, were militants. He denied any militant firing on the day of occurrence. 16. On a cumulative reading of the aforesaid evidence, it becomes apparent that PW-1 Wali Mohd. was not an eye-witness to the actual occurrence. By his own showing, he had gone towards Chilli and, on hearing gunshots, returned and found the deceased lying injured/dead. His testimony, therefore, is confined to the existence of enmity and the aftermath of the occurrence. It does not establish direct participation of the respondents in the actual firing. 17. Equally significant is the admitted existence of long-standing enmity between the complainant party and the respondents over the water mill dispute and other litigations. Not only that, it also stands admitted that on the very day of occurrence the house of respondent No. 1 was burnt and, in connection therewith, the complainant and his relatives were themselves implicated. This is a circumstance of considerable significance while assessing the possibility of exaggeration or false implication. 18. Contrasted with the aforesaid prosecution version is another line of evidence emerging from the testimony of PW-2 Rukam Din, PW-3 Ibrahim, PW-5 Haisam Din, and PW-9 Mohd. Aslam, all of whom speak of an occurrence involving cross-firing. According to them, militants had opened fire and, in the course of the retaliatory firing, the two deceased sustained bullet injuries. It is true that the prosecution has not produced any contemporaneous police report or documentary material to show that militant firing had in fact taken place in the vicinity on the date of occurrence. Yet, the fact remains that such a version does surface from the evidence of prosecution witnesses themselves. The Trial Court, while appreciating this aspect, found the prosecution account doubtful and held that the guilt of the respondents had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 19. On a closer scrutiny of the ocular evidence, the presence of PW-1 Wali Mohd., PW-7 Lal Din and PW-10 Mohd. Hussain at the actual scene of occurrence becomes doubtful, for their own narration suggests that they reached the place only after the incident had already occurred. Likewise, the presence of PW-11 Nazir Ahmad, the injured witness, also becomes questionable in the peculiar facts of the case. Hussain at the actual scene of occurrence becomes doubtful, for their own narration suggests that they reached the place only after the incident had already occurred. Likewise, the presence of PW-11 Nazir Ahmad, the injured witness, also becomes questionable in the peculiar facts of the case. He admits that at the relevant time he was at his own house, situated at a distance of about half a kilometre from the house of the respondents. In that background, his claim of having identified the assailants and intervened in the occurrence becomes inherently improbable. Though he had undoubtedly sustained a gunshot injury in his abdomen, the material question is whether that injury can safely be attributed to the firing allegedly made by the respondents. On that aspect, the independent witnesses do not lend assurance to the prosecution, whereas the witnesses seeking to implicate the respondents are closely related to the complainant side and are admittedly inimical towards them. 20. From the statement of PW-1 Wali Mohd., it is clearly inferable that he is not an eye-witness to the incident. His testimony also establishes pre- existing enmity with the respondents. PW-10 Mohd. Hussain, brother of the complainant, similarly admits pendency of litigation and hostility between the parties. More importantly, in his examination-in-chief, he categorically states that it was Shouket Ali and Liyakat Ali, the two other sons of respondent No. 1, who were firing from their house and that it was because of their firing that the deceased sustained gunshot injuries. If this version were to be accepted, it would exonerate the present respondents, because admittedly neither of those two persons was arrayed as an accused nor summoned during trial. This part of the evidence of PW-10 thus runs directly contrary to the prosecution case. 21. So far as PW-11 Nazir Ahmad is concerned, although he is an injured witness, his testimony does not materially improve the prosecution case. He merely states that the respondents had fired, but he does not attribute the shot which hit him to any particular accused. Rather, he specifically states that respondent Mehboob Ahmad was armed with a danda while the others were carrying weapons. He further states that he had made no statement before the police or any other person and that he disclosed the incident for the first time on 27.02.2006. He also implicates Shouket Ali and Liyakat Ali as participants in the firing. Rather, he specifically states that respondent Mehboob Ahmad was armed with a danda while the others were carrying weapons. He further states that he had made no statement before the police or any other person and that he disclosed the incident for the first time on 27.02.2006. He also implicates Shouket Ali and Liyakat Ali as participants in the firing. In view of his own admission that his house was half a kilometre away from that of the respondents, his assertion that he rushed to the spot and questioned the respondents as to why they were firing at the deceased appears highly improbable. 22. The defence has rightly pointed out that the prosecution evidence gives rise to multiple and mutually inconsistent versions. The first version is that the incident occurred due to cross-firing between militants and security forces, though no formal police record has been produced to substantiate such firing on that date. The second version emerges from PW-10 Mohd. Hussain, who attributes the fatal shots to Shouket Ali and Liyakat Ali, persons who were never sent up for trial. Yet another version appears in the same witness’s deposition before the Court, where he does not state that respondents Maqsood Ahmad, Mukhtyar Ahmad, Mehboob Ahmad and Inayatullah fired at either the injured or the deceased. If that testimony is accepted, then those respondents are assigned no overt role in the commission of the offence. A further and distinct version is introduced by PW-12 Mohd. Hussain S/o Ghulam Mustafa, who states that ten persons from the accused side were shouting “Allah-hu-Akbar” and had started firing towards the deceased. 23. It has also come in evidence that the statement of PW-11 Nazir Ahmad, the injured witness, was recorded after a delay of about eleven days. The explanation offered by the prosecution is that he was initially under treatment at Chilli and was later shifted to Jammu. It is well settled that mere delay in recording the statement of a witness is not necessarily fatal if the delay is satisfactorily explained. However, such delay remains a relevant circumstance while appreciating the credibility of the witness. Even if the delay in recording the statement of PW-11 is overlooked, his testimony does not materially strengthen the prosecution case. His presence at the scene of occurrence itself appears doubtful and he does not attribute the specific gunshot injury received by him to any particular accused. 24. Even if the delay in recording the statement of PW-11 is overlooked, his testimony does not materially strengthen the prosecution case. His presence at the scene of occurrence itself appears doubtful and he does not attribute the specific gunshot injury received by him to any particular accused. 24. Another significant aspect which creates doubt in the prosecution story is the wide divergence in the ocular version regarding the extent of firing. PW-5 Haisam Din speaks of more than 500 rounds being fired; PW-11 Nazir Ahmad states that only a few shots were fired; PW-12 Mohd. Hussain S/o Ghulam Mustafa deposes that the firing lasted for about 5 to 10 minutes with about 40 to 50 shots; whereas PW-7 Lal Din estimates that 60 to 65 shots were fired. These substantial variations cannot be treated as minor discrepancies attributable to lapse of memory. Rather, they strike at the very root of the prosecution version regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place. 25. The medical evidence also does not fully harmonise with the prosecution account. According to PW-Dr. Nizam Din Dar, the bullet injury sustained by deceased Shahina Begum appears to have been caused from a distance of more than one kilometre. A similar opinion was expressed in relation to the injury sustained by deceased Abdul Gani. The medical evidence further reveals that each of the deceased had suffered only a single gunshot injury. In the case of Shahina Begum, the bullet entered below the 12th rib column and exited through the right lower thigh after rupturing the peritoneum, spleen, left kidney and urinary bladder. In the case of Abdul Gani, the bullet entered from the left side of the chest and exited through the back after rupturing the lungs and fracturing ribs. 26. This medical evidence assumes significance because the prosecution case is that several of the respondents were armed with rifles and had opened indiscriminate fire upon the deceased. If numerous shots had been deliberately fired at close range, it remains unexplained how both deceased, as also the injured witness PW-11, sustained only a single bullet injury each. Though this circumstance by itself may not be decisive, it certainly adds to the doubt already arising from the inconsistent ocular testimony. 27. Furthermore, PW-9 Mohd. If numerous shots had been deliberately fired at close range, it remains unexplained how both deceased, as also the injured witness PW-11, sustained only a single bullet injury each. Though this circumstance by itself may not be decisive, it certainly adds to the doubt already arising from the inconsistent ocular testimony. 27. Furthermore, PW-9 Mohd. Aslam has deposed that while he was operating a wool-shredding machine at Kandeli, he saw people running in panic due to firing by militants and that security forces responded with retaliatory fire, during which the two deceased sustained injuries. This version finds some support from PW-2 Rukam Din and PW-3 Ibrahim, though they were declared hostile. Significantly, PW-9 Mohd. Aslam was not declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, the possibility of cross-firing cannot be completely ruled out. 28. It is also an admitted position on record that respondent No. 1 had earlier been attacked by militants and had therefore been provided weapons for self-protection. It has further come in evidence that on the very same day the house of respondent No. 1 was burnt and that, in connection with that incident, members of the complainant side were themselves implicated in a separate criminal case. These circumstances, taken together, create a background of intense hostility and uncertainty surrounding the occurrence. 29. The crucial question before the Court was whether the prosecution had been able to establish that the fatal bullet injuries sustained by the deceased and the injury received by PW-11 Nazir Ahmad were caused from the weapons allegedly used by the respondents. On this aspect the prosecution evidence is wholly deficient. Although certain weapons were allegedly recovered during investigation, no empty cartridges were recovered from the place of occurrence and the ballistic expert was not examined during trial. Consequently, the alleged ballistic report was never proved in accordance with law. In the absence of such scientific evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the seized weapons and the injuries sustained by the deceased. 30. In the totality of circumstances, therefore, while the cause of death of both deceased is clearly established to be gunshot injuries, the prosecution has failed to conclusively prove that those injuries were caused by the respondents. 30. In the totality of circumstances, therefore, while the cause of death of both deceased is clearly established to be gunshot injuries, the prosecution has failed to conclusively prove that those injuries were caused by the respondents. The Trial Court was justified in holding that the eye-witness account was unsafe to rely upon, particularly in view of the admitted enmity between the parties and the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands reinforced. Unless the findings recorded by the Trial Court are shown to be manifestly perverse or wholly unreasonable, the appellate court would be slow to interfere. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2002 SC 2821, and Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, wherein it was held that if two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. 31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant-State has failed to demonstrate any perversity or manifest illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court. The judgment of acquittal, therefore, does not warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.