JUDGMENT 1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this leave to appeal, against the order of acquittal dated 9th August, 1983, passed by the Sessions Judge, Alwar. 2. Four persons were tried for committing the murder of one Gulla by the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar. But, after recording the evidence and hearing both the parties, he found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against those persons beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, giving them benefit of doubt, he acquitted all the four persons. 3. The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution, are that on 1st June, 1982 Sbambhu lodged a report at Police Station Pratapgarh to the effect that while he and his brother Gulla (deceased) were going in a marriage-party and were sitting in a bus, the accused persons came there and demanded money from Gulla. Then, the accused persons took Gulla and Kanhaiya from the bus and forcibly took them towards their shop. Thereupon, the other persons also got down from the bus. At that time, Sewaram and Hari accused inflicted lathi blows to Gulla. Thereafter, Sewaram inflicted a scissor-blow on the chest of Gulla, as a result of which, Gulla died. 4. After investigation, the police submitted a challan against the accused persons and produced 17 witnesses. Accused Sewaram was charge-sheeted under Section 302, IPC and the other accused persons were charge sheeted under Section 302/34 IPC. After recording the evidence and considering the arguments of both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge while giving benefit of doubt, acquitted all the accused persons of the charge framed against them. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the medical evidence in this case, and that, from the statements of the eye-witnesses, it is clear that Sewaram inflicted blow on the chest of Gulla with an open scissor, and the medical evidence also supports this fact that Gulla died on account of the injuries on bis chest by a scissor. 6. We have perused the judgment of the learned trial court and also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. PW8 Shambhu and PW 11 Chhitar are the eye-witnesses in this case, and PW 14 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Gulla. 6. We have perused the judgment of the learned trial court and also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. PW8 Shambhu and PW 11 Chhitar are the eye-witnesses in this case, and PW 14 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of Gulla. PW 8 Shambhu, in bis statement, has stated that the scissor was open and that one of the blades of the scissor, was thrust into the chest of Gulla. PW 11 Chhitar who is another eye-witness to the incident; has stated that the scissor was closed one and in the closed condition of the scissor, Sewaram inflicted this injury on the chest of Gulla. Thus, there is contradiction and discrepancy in the statements of these two eye-witnesses. From the medical evidence, it is indicated that injury No,l found on the person of Gulla, was by a sharp-edged weapon and the edges of the wound, were clean cut. The doctor, PW 14 Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta, in his statement has agreed that there should be certain amount of bruising in the end which had its contact with the relatively blunt edge. He has further stated that he did not notice any bruising in any of the ends of the wound in question. 7. It is not disputed that a scissor has two blades and each blade is sharp on one side and blunt on the other. If a blade is thrust into a body, there would be clean cut wound on the side of sharp edge, but, on the blunt side, there would not be any clean cut. N.J. Modi in his medical jurisprudence, has mentioned : "An instrument having one cutting and one blunt edge, will show a certain amount of bruising and raggedness at one end of the wound. So, according to medical jurisprudence, there should be some amount of bruising or raggedness at the end of the wound of the blunt side. N.J. Modi in his medical jurisprudence, has mentioned : "An instrument having one cutting and one blunt edge, will show a certain amount of bruising and raggedness at one end of the wound. So, according to medical jurisprudence, there should be some amount of bruising or raggedness at the end of the wound of the blunt side. If the statement of PW 11 Chhitar is correct, then, the scissor was thrust into the chest in closed condition, and so, there should not be any clean cut wound and if the statement of PW 8 Shambhu is correct, then, only one blade of the scissor was thrust into the chest, and so, on one side there should be clean cut wound, and on the other, there should be no clean cut wound, but, there should be some amount of bruising or raggedness on account of its being bluntness, PW 14, Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta has admitted in his statement that there should be a certain amount of bruising in the end which had its contact with the relatively blunt edge. He did no' notice any brusing in any of the ends of the wound in question. So, the theory that the scissor in the dosed condition was thrust into the chest, is not corroborated by the medical evidence. This difference has not been explained by the prosecution, and the learned Session Judge discussed this aspect elaborately. He, has in his judgement, has rightly appreciated the doctor's evidence together with the statements of the eye-witnesses. He has also discussed with regard to medical jurisprudence by Modi and Taylor. We do not find that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge, is not proper and perverse. 8. We have also considered the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor. In view of the medical evidence and the principle laid down in Medical Jurisprudence we are also of this view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond suspicion, the case against the accused persons. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge which is based on just and proper appreciation of evidence, is not perverse. We, therefore, do not agree with the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor. As the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is based on proper appreciation of evidence, we see no reason to interfere in the finding arrived at by him. 9. We, therefore, do not agree with the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor. As the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is based on proper appreciation of evidence, we see no reason to interfere in the finding arrived at by him. 9. The application for leave to appeal, is, therefore, rejected and the leave sought is refused. *******