DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Krishna Pahal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and Sri Murlidhar Misra, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant, Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Ranjay Kumar, Mukhtar Alam, learned counsel for the accused respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, Sri Ankit Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the accused-respondent nos. 5 and 8, Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned amicus curiae appearing for the accused-respondent no. 7.

2. This Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Hamirpur in Session Trial No. 145 of 2000, State Vs. Raghuveer and 9 others whereby respondent-accuseds, Raghuveer Singh, Asutosh Singh @ Dabbu Singh, Uttam Singh, Pradeep Singh, Ashok Singh Chandel, Naseem, Shyam Singh, Sahab Singh, Jhandu and Bhan Singh have been acquitted of the charges under Section 147, 148, 302/149, 307/149 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Hamirpur as well as accused Ashok Singh Chandel has been acquitted of charges under section 379 and 404 IPC; in connected Session Trial Nos. 146 of 2000, State Vs. Sahab Singh wherein accused Sahab Singh has been acquitted of offence under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Hamirpur; and also in connected Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2000, State Vs. Ashok Singh Chandel wherein accused Ashok Singh Chandel has been acquitted of offence under Section 30 Arms Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Hamirpur. Informant Rajeev Shukla has also preferred a Criminal Revision against the impugned judgment in which Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 10 have been acquitted in S.T. No. 145 of 2000 of the above-mentioned charges as well as O.P. No.8 has been acquitted in S.T. No.146 of 2000 under Section 25 Arms Act and O.P. No.4, Ashok Kumar has been acquitted of charge under Section 30 of Arms Act.

3. Since both the Government Appeal and Criminal Revision arise out of the same judgment, hence, they have been taken up together for consideration and disposal.

4. In the memorandum of appeal, the grounds have been taken that the trial court has acquitted the accused erroneously by holding the F.I.R. to be ante-timed, the motive for causing the occurrence to be insufficient although there was clear mention made of the said motive in the F.I.R. itself; by holding the F.S.L. report to be unbelievable and also by ignoring the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court in various cases and it is prayed that the impugned judgment should be set-aside and the accused-respondents should be held guilty and punished in accordance with law.

5. Before proceeding to consider this appeal, it is pertinent to refer here the prosecution case and the evidence which has been gathered by the Investigating Officer which was considered by the trial court and found the same to be insufficient and after its evaluation, we have to see whether the same was correctly appreciated or does it require any interference.

6. The prosecution case as it unfolds in the F.I.R. in S.T. No. 145 of 2000 is that Rajiv Kumar S/o Bhishma Prasad Shukla R/o Ramedi Taraus, District Hamirpur, P.S. Kotwali, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur along with his servant Lallan S/o Pahalwan had gone to the market on 26.01.1997 at about 7:30 p.m. to purchase articles; his elder brother, Rakesh Kumar Shukla and two sons i.e. Gudda and Chandan and first informant's son Vipul along with Sri Kant S/o Gaya Prasad Pandey and Ved Prakash S/o Bhagwati Sharan Nayak, who all had gone to the place of his elder brother-in-law and were returning home, as soon as they reached near the gun shop of Naseem, they halted after seeing first informant (P.W.1) and Lallan and started talking to them, in the meantime from inside the house of Naseem, accused Naseem, A-1, accused Ashok Singh Chandel, A-2 (Ex- M.L.A.), accused S