JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—More than a decade back on October 9, 1978, an incident is said to have taken place in which two persons, namely, Surjit Singh and his brother Tarsem Singh, received serious injuries caused on account of stabbing. It is said that respondent Gajjan Singh had given the blows to these injured persons. 2. The injuries of Surjit Singh and Tarsem Singh, who have appeared at the trial as PWs 2 and 3, were, as recorded by Doctor R. T. Sehra (PW 1), these: Tarsem Singh "A penetrating wound on left side of abdomen roughly bout 1" penetrating wound through which intestines was coming out and margins of the wound could not be ascertained. The bowel outside showed slight gangrenous changes. Surjit Singh A penetrating 1" X 1 /4" wound on the left side chest through which air was coming out with each breath. The lung covering was protruding out of this wound. Margins were clear cut. Fresh blood was oozing out of the wound and clothes soaked with it. 1/2" x 1/4* penetrating wound with sharp margins on left side chest on the back near lateral border of shoulder blade. Fresh blood was coming out." 3. The case of the prosecution, essentially, was that respondent Gajjan Singh is a close neighbour of the injured persons. There was a wedding in the family of the victims The Barat party had arrived on October 8, 1978, and after the wedding, the next morning, it had departed at about 600 p.m. The prosecution says that at about 8.30 p m on that date while the members of the family of the victims were winding up the affairs and Durries etc. were being collected, respondent Gajjan Singh came out of his house and started abusing the family members of the victims. Surjit Singh is said to have objected to it- Gajjan Singh, it is said, gave two knife blows to Surjit Singh in the abdominal region. Tarsem Singh, who was in the kitchen, heard all this and came out. He came to the rescue of his brother but before he could do anything Gajjan Singh is said to have inflicted a knife blow at him too. Thereafter, Gajjan Singh is said to have ran away and closed himself inside the house in a room 4. Tarsem Singh, who was in the kitchen, heard all this and came out. He came to the rescue of his brother but before he could do anything Gajjan Singh is said to have inflicted a knife blow at him too. Thereafter, Gajjan Singh is said to have ran away and closed himself inside the house in a room 4. The injured persons were taken first to Haroli Dispensary where they were given some first aid and thereafter taken to Civil Hospital Una. The doctor noted down the injuries on the persons of the two victims and he informed the Police as well. A report was recorded which was followed by investigation. The injured took some time in their recovery. They had to be taken to the P. G. I. Chandigarh. Both of them remained there for sometime and had also to undergo surgical operations. The injuries which had been sustained by the two victims were medically found to be such which could have resulted in their death. 5. Gajjan Singh was tried by Sessions Judge, Una, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1979. A large number of witnesses were examined at the trial. The two injured persons also appeared as witnesses and gave out the circumstances in which respondent Gajjan Singh is said to have caused injuries. The ultimate conclusion to which the learned Sessions Judge come, on considering the evidence in the case, was that it had not been proved beyond doubt that it was respondent Gajjan Singh who had caused injuries to the two victims. He acquitted them. 6. The State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed that order of acquittal in the present criminal appeal. The appeal was admitted to fuller hearing by this Court on January 9, 1980 It came to be heard by a bench of two Honble Judges in the year 1987 Justice T. R. Handa, one of the members of the bench, felt that the order of acquittal did not merit interference. The appeal was admitted to fuller hearing by this Court on January 9, 1980 It came to be heard by a bench of two Honble Judges in the year 1987 Justice T. R. Handa, one of the members of the bench, felt that the order of acquittal did not merit interference. In his opinion delivered on January 9, 1987, he has enumerated as many as thirteen circumstances which led him to the view that it was not possible to conclude that the occurrence took place in the courtyard of the house of the injured persons : that it took place between 8.00 or 9.00 p. m , as suggested by the prosecution, and that accused Gajjan Singh suddenly entered into the courtyard without any provocation an j abused Surjit Singh in filthy language and then inflicted injuries upon him and his brother Tersem Singh. 7. Justice R. S. Thakur, the other learned Judge, found himself unable to agree with the view taken by Handa, J. In a detailed opinion running into nearly 65 paragraphs he mentioned the circumstances which made it clear beyond doubt that it was Gajjan Singh alone who was responsible for the injuries sustained by the two injured persons and in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. He felt that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge was unsustainable and unjustified. In his opinion it required to be set aside and the accused liable to be punished for offences under sections 307 and 326 of the I. P. C. 8. In view of the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges the case came to be heard by me as the third Judge. 9. Learned Asstt. Advocate General has taken me through the evidence on record. He has also emphasised each and every circumstance on the basis whereof he was able to persuade Justice Thakur to the view that the order of acquittal deserved to be set aside, before me as well. Prima facie, there is substance in what has been urged by the learned Asstt. Advocate General and it does appear that the circumstances which appealed to Justice Thakur could lead to the view that the order of acquittal of Gajjan Singh deserved to be set aside. Prima facie, there is substance in what has been urged by the learned Asstt. Advocate General and it does appear that the circumstances which appealed to Justice Thakur could lead to the view that the order of acquittal of Gajjan Singh deserved to be set aside. However, on closer reflection I find that it would not be proper now, after a lapse of more than a decade from the date of occurrence, to set aside the order of acquittal. 10. Before mentioning the factors which have weighed with me, for the aforesaid view, I may mention that Shri M. G. Chitkara, appearing for accused respondent Gajjan Singh, has relied basically upon the factors enumerated by Handa, J. in his opinion. It is, however, not necessary for me to notice the circumstances or the factors which impressed the two learned Judges for the opinion held by them for the simple reason that it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the order of acquittal at such a belated stage. As desired by the Court, Gajjan Singh bas appeared before me today. On the basis of instructions given by him to Shri Chitkara some factors have been brought lo my notice by the learned Counsel. The first of these factors is that after the incident which took place in the year 1978, and the order of acquittal which was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the year 1979, parties have lived like good neighbours. There has not been any incident of violence between them The evidence on the record is clear that accused Gajjan Singh and the two victims are next door neighbours It is also in evidence that the compound in front of their houses is common Further, that the incident, oat of which the present appeal arises, was the solitary instance of a quarrel between the parties 11. The circumstance that the parties have remained at peace for over a decade past far out weighs any other consideration which may be taken into account by this Court for reversing the order of acquittal which was recorded in the case by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. The circumstance that the parties have remained at peace for over a decade past far out weighs any other consideration which may be taken into account by this Court for reversing the order of acquittal which was recorded in the case by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. From the evidence led in the case on behalf of the prosecution it is not possible to discern any immediate cause which may have prompted accused Gajjan Singh to have come out of his house and inflict injuries upon the two brothers. There is no clear pointer to any reason which may have resulted in the action attributed to him, by accused Gajjan Singh. The reason, for the alleged conduct of Gajjan Singh, has been left in obscurity by the evidence brought on record. 13. It is true, as pointed out by the learned Asstt. Advocate General, that the injured person is that best witness about the person who may have caused injuries to him. Also, that in the normal course an injured person would not have left out the real assailant while attributing the attack to an innocent man. In this case, however, a look at the evidence of the injured persons themselves is enough to show that it is not possible to conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt that it was Gajjan Singh alone who had caused the injuries to the two persons. For example, as PW 2 one of the injured Surjit Singh himself says that Gajjan Singh was empty handed and that he did not see any knife in the hands of Gajjan Singh. The other injured person Tarsem Singh, undoubtedly, said that Gajjan Singh had an open knife in his hand, yet, in the state of law as it is, namely, that the benefit of any reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused person, the above statement of PW 2 Surjit Singh does leave the matter in a state of doubt as to whether Gajjan Singh was actually armed with a knife with which he attacked him. 14. The prosecution story is clear about the fact that Gajjan Singh was all by himself and that he chose to dart out of his house and inflict injuries upon the two victims. 14. The prosecution story is clear about the fact that Gajjan Singh was all by himself and that he chose to dart out of his house and inflict injuries upon the two victims. The story also is that around the place where the incident is said to have happened there were large number of the members of the family of the victims gathered at their residence in connection with the marriage in the family. There is substance in the submission that as a man endowed with even a modicum of common sense Gajjan Singh would not take the risk of assaulting the two victims in these circumstances. More so, when it has not been possible for the prosecution to bring out any specific reason which may have enraged Gajjan Singh to the extent that he would behave in such an unusual manner as to assault the two brothers while several other members of their family were present in the vicinity. 15. The learned Sessions Judge did not accept the prosecution case. He acquitted Gajjan Singh, The presumption of innocence stood reinforced by this order of acquittal. One of the learned Judges of this Court, while hearing the appeal against the order of acquittal, also felt that there were inherent weaknesses in the prosecution story and that the order of acquittal deserved to be upheld. This lends further support to the presumption of innocence of Gajjan Singh. It is settled law that courts of appeal should be slow to disturb an order of acquittal in view of the redoubled assurance to the presumption of innocence of an accused person on account of the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge. 16. Primarily on account of the fact that during the past period of over a decade parties have lived like good neighbours, as also on account of the aforesaid circumstances. I am not inclined to the view that the order of acquittal of Gajjan Singh deserves to be interfered with. 17. I would, agreeing with the ultimate view of T. R. Handa, J., dismiss the appeal. Bail bonds of the respondent are discharged. Appeal dismissed.-