JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.1985 of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Kendrapara in G.R. Case No. 372/1984 acquitting the opposite party No. 1 of the charge under Sections 447/173/324, IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is that on 30-5-1984, at about 7 a.m. while Krupasindhu Das, Petitioner No. 1 was taking, tiffin in his house the heard the sound of cutting of a tree, and as he went to the spot and found the opposite party No. 1 cutting the branches of a Chakunda tree from his Bari, he protested. At this, opposite party No. 1 got down from the tree and dealt him an axe blow on his head. As opposite party No. 1 raised a second blow, Parbati Devi, Petitioner No. 3 caught hold of the axe. Thereafter the opposite party assaulted both Krupasindhu and Parbati by means of a lathi causing injuries on their persons. Ramakrushna, Petitioner No. 2, the son of Krupasindhu, lodged a written report about the incident before the Officer-in-charge, Kendrapara Police Station (P.W. 8), who registered a case, took up investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party No. 1. Petitioner No. 1, Krupasindhu having died during the pendency of the case, his name has since been deleted from the petition. 3. The plea of opposite party No. 1 at the trial is one of total denial. It is pleaded that a false case has been foisted against him on account of previous ill-feeling between both the families. 4. learned trial Court on the materials on record disbelieved the prosecution case and recorded the order of acquittal. In arriving at his conclusion, he found that not only the injured witnesses, Petitioners 1 and 3 but also the witnesses, P.Ws. 3 to 6 had given a clear version of the case implicating opposite party No. 1 in the alleged acts of assault. According to him, however, there was discrepancy in the ocular testimony of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 and the medical evidence of the doctor, P.W. 9. He also held that blow by means of an axe did not appear to be probable having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner No. 1 Krupasindhu. According to him, however, there was discrepancy in the ocular testimony of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 and the medical evidence of the doctor, P.W. 9. He also held that blow by means of an axe did not appear to be probable having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner No. 1 Krupasindhu. It is further found that although the trouble started over cutting of the branches from a Chakunda tree, the I.O. did not direct his investigation on that point to find out whether the tree was actually cut, and according to the learned Magistrate this being the substratum of the, case, the failure on the part of the I.O. to examine the aforesaid matter throws a cloud of suspicion as to the truth of the Incident. The learned Magistrate has thus held: Hence on the basis of the aforesaid analysis even though the witnesses deposed in favour of the prosecution, 1 do not feel, it would be safe to place reliance on the aforesaid witnesses to base conviction against the accused persons. On these findings the learned trial Court has recorded the order of acquittal. 5. Mr. Kar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has urged that the learned trial Court has not properly dealt with the case in its proper perspective. He did not examine the individual testimony of the eye-witnesses, or the reliability of the witnesses his appreciation of the evidence with regard to the ocular testimony vis-a-vis the medical evidence is also legally untenable. On these grounds, it is sought to be canvassed that the order of acquittal should be set aside and re-trial ordered. He has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ayodhya Dube and Others Vs. Ram Sumer Singh, in support of his contentions. On a perusal of the aforesaid decision, I have no doubt in my mind that the principles enunciated therein are applicable in all fours to the present case. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that there has been non-application of the mind on the part of the learned trial Court in that the individual testimony of the eye-witnesses has not been discussed, and their reliable testimony has been ignored, from which it follows that material evidence has not been considered and has been rather overlooked. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that there has been non-application of the mind on the part of the learned trial Court in that the individual testimony of the eye-witnesses has not been discussed, and their reliable testimony has been ignored, from which it follows that material evidence has not been considered and has been rather overlooked. The appreciation of evidence of eye-witnesses in relation to medical evidence is also found to be untenable. The principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, has not been properly considered in its correct perspective. The judgment also consists of faulty reasonings and lack of judicial approach, and as rightly contended on behalf of the Petitioners, the accepted canons for appreciating evidence have been lost sight of. The cumulative effect of all this in my opinion has led a miscarriage of justice. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of acquittal is not sustainable. 6. On the aforesaid analysis, the revision is allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. The learned Court below is directed to try the case afresh in accordance with law. He would not, however, be influenced by any of the observations made in this judgment touching the merits of the case. Final Result : Allowed