JUDGMENT 1. - This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 26, 1971 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, whereby he acquitted accused Mangia of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 523 I.P.C. and also acquitted the two other accused Laxmi Narain and Ram Narain under Section 323 I.P.C. 2. Tersely speaking shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution story as disclosed in the first information report is that in the Bada Kua situated in village Rajiawata deceased Chhitar, Bajranglal and Dhanna had their shares and they used to take water by rotation. It is alleged that on the fateful day on January 10, 1970 it was the turn of Chhitar (since deceased) to take water from the well. After sun rise Chhitar in the company of his two sons PW 2 Gopal, PW 1 Jagannath and his wife PW 9 Mst. Kesar went to his field. At the relevant time accused Mangia was drawing water from the well. Chhitar objected to it and asked Mangia to desist from drawing water. As it was his turn to draw water & irrigate his fields, he requested Mangia to allow the latter to draw water from the well. Mangia refused to oblige Chhitar; on the contrary Mangia inflicted a blow with a `Nijuna' (small stick) on the head of Chhitar. The two accused Laxmi Narain & Ram Narain caught hold of PW2 Gopal & PW 1 Jagnnath and Mangia inflicted blows on their person. A first information report of this occurrence Ex. P/1 was lodged at the Police Station, Nenwa by Jagnnath PW 1 on the same day at 10.30 a.m. The distance between the Police Station and the place of occurrence is two miles. 3. After recording the first information report Ex. P/1 Chhitar was taken to the hospital at Nenwa. It is alleged that by the time Chhitar (since deceased) was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. The autopsy on the dead body of Chhitar was performed by Dr. Jai Gopal Arora PW 6 on January 10, 1970. He found the following external injuries on the dead body:- 1. One lacerated wound 1/2" X 1/4" X 1/4" on the scalp 41/2" away from the right eye brow, 51/2" away from the right ear, and 91/2" away from the posterior occipital protuberance. 2. Jai Gopal Arora PW 6 on January 10, 1970. He found the following external injuries on the dead body:- 1. One lacerated wound 1/2" X 1/4" X 1/4" on the scalp 41/2" away from the right eye brow, 51/2" away from the right ear, and 91/2" away from the posterior occipital protuberance. 2. One bruise 1" x 1/2" on the left forehead in the middle. 3. One bruise 1" x 1/2" on the forehead just above the left eye brow. 4. Haemotoma on the scalp on the frontal region both parietal regions and both the temporal regions. On internal examination the doctor noted that there was a comminuted fracture of the right frontal right parietal bones & left finite-parietal suture, which was open. There was blood clots in substance of skin & in between skin & fractured bones. The membrance was ruptured in the region of the right parietal by the fractured bone. He noted flat there were justified bloods clots on the lateral surface on the brain and the cerebrum of the brain was also pierced by the fractured pieces of the right, parietal bone. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to the injuries to the brain & haemorrhage & shock produced as a result of injuries described above. He further observed that injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 4. On the same day the same doctor clinically examined Gopal son of Chhitar Dhakar. He noted two injuries on his person. Both of them were simple. PW 1 Jagannath was also clinically examined by same doctor, on the same day, who noted one simple injury on his person. PW 12 Badri Prasad, the investigating officer of of this case, went on the scene of occurrence, prepared site plan Ex P/3, Halat Moka Ex. P/2 and recorded the statement of Jagannath. Accused-respondent Mangia' was arrested on January 11, 1970. The arrest memo is Ex P/15. Accused-respondent Mangia after his arrest expressed his desire to get the `Nijuna' recovered from, the place of its concealment. In consequence of the information given by the accused Mangia,'Nijuna' Article 1 was seized on January 11, 1970 vide Ex P/4. The test indentifications of the Nijuna' was held on January 14, 1970 under the supervision of the Second Class Magistrate, Nenwa. In consequence of the information given by the accused Mangia,'Nijuna' Article 1 was seized on January 11, 1970 vide Ex P/4. The test indentifications of the Nijuna' was held on January 14, 1970 under the supervision of the Second Class Magistrate, Nenwa. It is alleged that two eye-witnesses Jagannath and Gopal identified it to be the weapon by which Mangia inflicted injuries on the person of Chhitar since deceased. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the three accused in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Nenwa. The leanned Magistrate after taking proceedings under Section 207 Cr. P.C committed the accused for trial. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of their case, out of whom PW 1 Jagannath, PW 2 Gopal and PW 9 Mst. Kesar have been examined as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. PW 6 is the doctor who performed autopsy on the dead body of Chhitar and clinically examined the two injured persons PW 1 Jagannath and PW 2 Gopal. PW 3 Ratanlal is the Second Class Magistrate under whose supervision the test identification of `Nijuna' was held. PW 12 Badri Prasad is the investigating officer of the case. The accused denied their complicity to the crime and stated that Chhitar sustained injury as he fell down into the Guni. They examined three witnesses indefence DW 1 Kishan Singh is Patwari. DW 2 & DW 3 Kalyanlal & Jagannath were examined to prove the alibi of the co-accused Laxmi Narain and Ram Narain. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the various contradictions appearing in the statements of the eye-witnesses came to the conclusion that none of the eye-witnesses were on the scene of the occurrence at the time of the assault. On the basis of the above finding he acquitted the accused respondents of all the charges framed against them. 7. Aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal the State has come up in appeal. 8. Mr. G.G. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has strenuously challenged the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and Mr. B.S. Sharma assisted by Mr. K K. Sharma has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 9. 7. Aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal the State has come up in appeal. 8. Mr. G.G. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has strenuously challenged the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and Mr. B.S. Sharma assisted by Mr. K K. Sharma has supported the judgment of the trial Court. 9. It is not rightly being disputed that Chhitar sustained injuries on the day and time alleged by the prosecution and as a result of which he died later on while being taken to the hospital. 10. The principles governing appeal against acquittal are well settled. In Ram Jag and others v. The State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 606 Hon'ble Chandra Chud ,J. speaking for the Court laid down the law as under : 'The Code of Criminal Procedure by Section 423, has accorded parity to appeals against conviction and appeals against acquittal. The Code makes no distinction between the power is of the appellate court in regard to the two categories of appeals and therefore the High Court has powers as full and wide in appeals against acquittal as in appeals against conviction. Whether the High Court is dealing with one class of appeals or the other, it must equally have regard to the fundamental principles of Criminal jurisprudence that unless the statute provides to the contrary there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and secondly, that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Due regard to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses in matters resting on pre-appreciation of evidence & the studied slowness of the appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, where such seeing and hearing can be useful aids to the assessment of evidence, are well-known principles which generally inform the administration of justice and govern the exercise of all appellate jurisdiction. They are self-imposed limitations on a power otherwise plenary and like all voluntary restraints, they constitute valuable guidelines. Such regard and slowness must find their reflection in the appellate judgment, which can only be if the appellate court deals with the principal reasons that influenced the order of acquittal and after examining the evidence with care gives its own reasons justifying a contrary view of the evidence. Such regard and slowness must find their reflection in the appellate judgment, which can only be if the appellate court deals with the principal reasons that influenced the order of acquittal and after examining the evidence with care gives its own reasons justifying a contrary view of the evidence. It is implicit in this judicial process that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, the finding of acquittal ought not to be disturbed." 11. Informing ourselves of the above proposition of law, we now proceed to evaluate the evidence in the case. 12. A perusal of the first information report shows that the prosecution case at the inception was that the accused Mangia inflicted injuries on the person of Chhitar as well as Jagannath and Gopal, but at the trial they gave a good go by to the prosecution case and made a substantial improvement in the prosecution story. All the three witnesses stated that the two witnesses Jagannath PW 1 and Gopal PW 2 were beaten by accused Ram Narain and Laxmi Narain. This improvement in their statements before the Court is a purposeful improvement. It has been made with a purpose to implicate the two other accused Laxmi Narain and Ram Narain in the crime. Even Jagannath has gone back upon his earlier statement given in the first information report and the committing court and has made substantial improvement in his statement before the trial court. In a criminal trial it is of prime importance of the accused to know as to what the exact prosecution case is. If the pivot of the prosecution case is not accepted and a new story is developed at the trial, a new prosecution case cannot be made to impel it the defence. The attempt on the part of the eye-witnesses to implicate the two accused for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC at the stage of trial casts a considerable doubt upon the veracity of their statements. These eye-witnesses have made attempt to falsely implicate two innocent persons, it cannot be vouchsafe for the fact that even the act attributed to the third accused may have been conveniently made to suit the need of the prosecution case. How ought we know that their statements against the third accused are reliable one. 13. These eye-witnesses have made attempt to falsely implicate two innocent persons, it cannot be vouchsafe for the fact that even the act attributed to the third accused may have been conveniently made to suit the need of the prosecution case. How ought we know that their statements against the third accused are reliable one. 13. It is common case of the parties that the fate of the entire case depend on the credibility of the statement of the three eye witnesses namely, PW 1 Jagannath. PW 2 Gopal and PW 9 Mst. Kesar. The main point which arises for decision is whether we can safely act upon the statement of these witness. Admittedly all the three witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and they can very well be termed as interest witnesses. Now we proceed to evaluate the evidence in the case in the light of the material omissions, contradictions and inherent impossibilities of the case pointed by the learned counsel for the accused. PW 1 Jagannath in his statement before the Court stated that he along with his brother and parents reached on the well and thereafter he went to Naiwala well to bring bhoon so there. He has also admitted that Naiwala well is situated at a distance of half a mile away from Bada Kua (place of occurrence). It is apparent that this witness must have at least taken half an hour in going and coming from Naiwala well to Bada Kua. The prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that as soon as Chhitar and others went on the Bada Kua the quarrel started and Mangia inflicted a "Nijuna" blow on the head of Chhitar. It does not stand to reason if Jagannath had gone to take the bhoon from his other well and returned after half an hour, how could he have been the eye-witness to the assault on the person of Chhitar, which is alleged to have take place as soon as Chhitar went to the well. PW 1 Jagnath stated that he along with his brother Gopal, his father Chittar and his another Mst. Kesar went to Bada Kua on the date of the occurrence about one and a half hour after the sun rise. He stated that all of them went together. PW 1 Jagnath stated that he along with his brother Gopal, his father Chittar and his another Mst. Kesar went to Bada Kua on the date of the occurrence about one and a half hour after the sun rise. He stated that all of them went together. Contrary to his statement Gopal PW 2 has in his cross-examination that he alone went to the well and did not go with his parents and Jagannath. The witness further goes on to state that Jagannath and Chhitar also did not go together to the well. PW 9 Mst. Kesar has given altogether a different version. She stated that Jagannath, Gopal and Chhitar went together and she left afterwards. Thus, there is an apparent irreconcilable contradiction in the statements of these three witness regarding the time of their starting from their house and reaching at the well. PW 1 Jagannath stated that he along with his brother and parents reached at the well and thereafter he went to Naiwala Kua to bring the bhoon, whereas contrary to that Gopal PW 2 has stated that Jagarnath brought the bhoon before the reached the well. Thus it cannot be said with certainty that at what stage of time Gopal and Jagannath reached as well. PW 1 Jagannath and PW 2 Gopal made different statements in the committing Court and the trial Court. They were confronted with the various portions of their statements recorded before the committing court. They failed to explain the contradictions and had to admit that some of the portions of their statements made by them in the trial court were not correct. A perusal of the statement of PW 9 Mst. Kesar shows that she under cross-examination admitted that after hearing the cries of her sons she came on the scene of the occurrence and found her husband lying under the Neem tree. The statement is suggestive of the fact that she could not have been as to which of the three accused inflicted injury on her husband. Only one blow is alleged to have been given on the head of Chhitar and if he had seen her husband lying under the Neem tree, it cannot be said that she must have seen Mangia inflicting blow on the head of Chittar. 14. Only one blow is alleged to have been given on the head of Chhitar and if he had seen her husband lying under the Neem tree, it cannot be said that she must have seen Mangia inflicting blow on the head of Chittar. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has urged that no doubt these contradictions appear in the statements of these waitresses, but they are not on material points and such contradictions are bound to appear in the statement of untutored witnesses. The contradictions appearing in the statements of these witnesses cannot be brushed aside so lightly as the learned counsel for the State wants us to do. Except this portion of the statement that Mangia inflicted a lathi blow on the head of Chhitar, they have been contradicted on almost all points. 15. Besides that, there is another infirmity in the prosecution case. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents is correct in saying that according to the statement of PW 6 Dr. Jai Gopal Arora deceased Chhitar sustained three injuries, whereas according to the statements of all the three eye witnesses Chhitar (since deceased) was hit only once. Thus there is apparent contradiction between the medical evidence and the state men's of these three eye-witnesses. The prosecution has failed to explain as to how Chhitar (since deceased sustained two other injuries. These unexplained injuries are suggestive of the fact that the alleged eye-witnesses had not witnessed the assault on Chhitar. If they would have seen the occurrence they would have described all the three injuries. Thus there is direct conflict between the ocular and the medical evidence, which is a substantial infirmity in the prosecution case. The trial Court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box. We are unable to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court is such that no reasonable man properly instructed in law could have reached on the evidence. 16. The remaining evidence is regarding discovery of `Nijuna' Article 1. Even if the discovery is held to be proved, the discovery of `Nijuna' is not sufficient to correct the accused with the crime, because `Nijuna' was not sent to the Chemical Examiner or the Serologist for detecting that any marks of human blood were available on it or not. This is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. Even if the discovery is held to be proved, the discovery of `Nijuna' is not sufficient to correct the accused with the crime, because `Nijuna' was not sent to the Chemical Examiner or the Serologist for detecting that any marks of human blood were available on it or not. This is a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution. Apart from that, the prosecution has also failed to ask an important question to PW 6 Dr. Jai Gopal Arora, while he was in the witness box. If the prosecution wanted to place reliance on the recovery of `Nijuna,' he ought to have been at least asked whether the injuries sustained by Chhitar could have been caused by `Nijuna' or not. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court and the appeal is devoid of any merit. There is nothing to hold that the judgment of the trial court demonstrates anything on the basis of which it can be said, keeping in view the relevant evidence on record that the conclusions of the trial court are clearly misconceived. We are clearly of the opinion that this is not a fit case where this court should interfere with the acquittal of any of the respondents. 17. In the result, we dismiss this appeal and maintain the acquittal of the accused. respondents.Appeal dismissed. *******