A. K. LAXMESHWAR, J. ( 1 ) THE above revision petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 22-7-1988 in Criminal Appeal No. 55/83, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, confirming the conviction of the appellant and modifying the sentence by reducing the sentence of R. I. of three years to two years passed by the Munsiff, and J. M. F. C. Thirthahalli, in C. C. No. 161/1983 dated 11-11-1983. ( 2 ) THE facts of the cast in brief are that the accused and the complainant were friends. On the date of occurrence i. e. , 2-5-1983 at about 3. 30 p. m. complainant - P. W. 1 and the accused were near the arrack shop situated at Thirthahalli. The accused - Hassansab is a disabled man and he cannot walk. Therefore, he was using clutches. On that day also he had brought clutches to the arracks shop of Shekar. It appears that the accused requested to P. W. 1 to get him 60 ML of arrack. P. W. 1 refused and therefore some exchange of words started in that alteration, the accused lifted one of his clutches and wanted to hit tin the head of P. W. 1, but it was missed and fell on the left eye of P. W. 1 On these allegations, the police of Thirthahalli after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the accused for an offence punishable under S. 326, I. P. C. The number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution and documents such as Accident Register, wound certificate etc. , were produced by the prosecution. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate after appreciating the oral evidence of the parties and examining the documents passed an order convicting the accused for an offence punishable under S. 326, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for three years. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the order the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 55/1983 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Shimoga. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties confirmed the conviction by modifying the offence and undergo the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under S. 325, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for two years. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties confirmed the conviction by modifying the offence and undergo the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under S. 325, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for two years. Being aggrieved by both the orders of conviction and sentence the accused-petitioner filed the above criminal revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him by the Courts below. The learned counsel Mr. C. V. Nagesh, appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts have failed to take into consideration the material placed before them. He firstly submitted in the said case that there are more than one F. I. Rs. For that he submits that P. W. 8 - P. S. I. of Thirthahally in his evidence stated that on the evening of 2-6-1983 on receipt of the information regarding the commission of the offence alleged he went to the S. J. C. Hospital at Thirthahalli and there he recorded the statement of the injured - P. W. 1 i. e. , the complainant. According to Exhibit P. 1, it was recorded by him and it was exhibited as Ex. P. 1 in the case. Then he registered the commission of the offence and filed the information in the F. I. R. The contents of it are found in F. I. R. Therefore, it is clear that the statement recorded by P. W. 8 is treated as F. I. R. This comes to the knowledge of P. W. 8 for the second time. Once in the police station and. second time in the hospital. The learned counsel also submits referring to column 4 of the F. I. R. wherein it is mentioned by the P. S. I. the statement of the injured was recorded at 7. 45 p. m. in the Hospital. In Exhibit P. 1 it is found that the statement was recorded by him at 20 hours i. e. , at 8. 00 p. m. Looking into this discrepancy the learned counsel Sri. Nagesh, submits that he must have taken one statement at 7. 45 p. m. and another statement at 8. 00 p. m. It goes to show that there are two statements recorded by P. W. 8. 00 p. m. Looking into this discrepancy the learned counsel Sri. Nagesh, submits that he must have taken one statement at 7. 45 p. m. and another statement at 8. 00 p. m. It goes to show that there are two statements recorded by P. W. 8. Looking at this the learned counsel submits that the prosecution has suppressed and it is not on record the statement said to have been recorded at 7. 45 p. m. and it is also not on record when at what time from whom the P. W. 8 - P. S. I. received the information in the Police Station in the evening of 2nd May 1983. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that one F. I. R. said to have been received is suppressed not only suppressed but not brought on record. Secondly the prosecution has not placed on record what was the statement recorded at 7. 45 p. m. This sort of discrepancy alleged on the pari of prosecution give ample doubt that the prosecution must have done this, with an intention to build up a case that may suit their requirement. I have carefully considered this aspect. Sri. Nagesh, further submits that P. W. 1 is not a truthful witness, as he went on improving his evidence right up from his statement. In the statement he has stated that he had gone to the said arrack shop to drink while he was coming out the accused was entering the shop. While entering, the accused fell on the complainant. Therefore wordly altercation took place there. It is also admitted by P. W. 1 himself that he abused the accused. Looking into this Mr. Nagesh, submits that the accused was yet to enter the arrack shop and consumed alcohol. He may be physically lame man and he has been supported by clutches, however he was sober in his way and there was no reason to loose the normalcy as the clutches were with him to balance him but the complainant - P. W. 1 entered the shop and was coming out means he must have consumed alcohol. As against this the learned State Public Prosecutor submits that there is no evidence to show that he was drunk. As against this the learned State Public Prosecutor submits that there is no evidence to show that he was drunk. As there was no evidence to show that P. W. 1 was drunk therefore he must be sober enough to control the balance when this lame man was coming inside. However there is practically no evidence except the say of P. W. 1 that he went to arrack shop to drink the alcohol. Neither he has said that he did not drink he simply went to see inside the arrack shop and came out without drinking, and. there is not evidence also to show that he was drunk. Under these circumstances, two inferences can be drawn either he might have drunk or he might not have drunk. Two inferences are possible one that is fair about the accused will have to be inferred. Though it may not threw much light in the ease it is one of the circumstances to show that P. W. 1 though not physically handicapped might have lost his balance on account of drinks. Sri. Nagesh, invited my attention to Exhibit P. 1 and pointed out that there are corrections in the endorsement made by the P. S. I. I see that the time put by the P. S. I. as 20 hours is correct. What was written first cannot be said, by looking at it. However, the correction is clear and it is one of the grounds to suspect. Taking advantage of this the learned counsel Sri. Nagesh, submits that at every stage the prosecution is trying to do something to create a Case that suits, their requirements. In view of the above discussion I am inclined to hold that there is some force in the contention of Mr. Nagesh, that there are more than one F. I. R. in the case. This really gives some doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. Sri. Nagesh, learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out in Ex. P. 1 the assault. which is described for proper appreciation is as follows : (Matter in Vernacular - Not printed) p. W. 1 in his evidence has stated that in the meantime the accused took his clutches and pushed the same in to his left eye. Therefore by reading this the learned counsel Sri. Nagesh submits that there is improvement in the evidence regarding the manner of assault. Therefore by reading this the learned counsel Sri. Nagesh submits that there is improvement in the evidence regarding the manner of assault. Pushing with the clutches means the blow fell on the head and as assult of which he sustained injuries near the left eye amounts to hitting on particular spot. Thus it is an improvement in the evidence and also in the evidence of P. W. 1. Here in his evidence P. W. 1 has stated that the accused requested me to get 60 ML of arrack, I do not respond to the request of the accused. But in Ex. P. 1 does not say that how and when the altercation between himself and P. W. 1 began. However, he says in Ex. P. 1, which is first information report and which is a statement recorded by P. W. 8 it is said : (Matter in vernacular - Not printed) a motive for the quarrel is quite different. P. W. 1 was coming out and this accused was going in and he fell on P. W. 1 but whereas in his statement he himself saying that he asked him to get 60 ML arrack for him and he refused to do it, therefore, the quarrel began. Therefore, there is improvement certainly as contended by Sri. , Nagesh. I do find improvement in the evidence of P. W. 1 at every stage regarding motive. There is an improvement regarding the assault. The cumulative effect of all this goes to show that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused as alleged by them. There are material contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and it is also submitted by the learned counsel Sri. Nagesh that the name of eye-witness must have been given at the time when the statement was recorded, but in his statement he has clearly stated that I do not know the names or I do not know the persons who were present. But somehow P. Ws. 2 and 4 were examined at the time of trial. Their names do not find place either in the complaint given by P. W. 1 or in the charge-sheet. Therefore, he submits that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are got up witnesses. Their evidence should not be relied upon. The evidence of P. Ws. But somehow P. Ws. 2 and 4 were examined at the time of trial. Their names do not find place either in the complaint given by P. W. 1 or in the charge-sheet. Therefore, he submits that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are got up witnesses. Their evidence should not be relied upon. The evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 4 exaggerates the injuries which says that the eyeballs came but from the Doctor's evidence it was found that eye-balls were oedematous conjuctive conjucted cornial tare and not stated by the Doctor that eye-ball came out of the socket. It is not necessary to deal with all contradictions. But however the cumulative effect of all the discrepancies contradicts does not goes to show that it was the accused who assaulted, the complainant in the manner alleged by the prosecution. For the reasons stated above, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore the orders of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below are not sustainable. In the result, Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Orders of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below are set aside. The bail bonds stand cancelled, and the petitioner is acquitted. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .