PALOK BASU J. ( 1 ) - This is an appeal by the State of V. P. against the acquittal of Bhan Singh and nine others recorded by III Addi. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 7. 9. 1978 in Sessions Trial No. A 175 of 1977. ( 2 ) AN incident took place on 23. 10. 1976. It is said that Jagat Singh, Bali Ram, informant, Gulzara, deceased Sukhdev and Chauhal Singh were sitting in the house of Jagat Singh and enjoying Hukka, Around 8. 30 A. M. ten accused reached there. Dhan Singh and Ombir were armed with Bhalas, Anup and Chote armed with some and others were armed with lathis. Accused Dhan Singh and Nyadar asked Jagat Singh to compromise the earlier incidents in which Smt. Rajkali was injured which case was pending in the Court of Sessions. This was objected to by Gulzara deceased and said compromise was not possible. At this Dhan Singh and Nyadar exhorted to assault them. Atar Singh, Hriday a Ram (P. W. 8) and Bali Ram tried to intervene but failed. In the meantime Jagat Singh, Sukhdev and Gulzara also picked up lathis. Devendra, son of Jagat Singh also came out with a lathi from it side the house. Then Dhan Singh gave a spear injury to Gulzara. Ombir also gave a spear injury to him. Gulsara fell down and expired. Then respondent accused beat Devendra, Jagat Singh and Sukhdev and wielded lathis in self-defence. After beating them the accused went inside the house and beat Smt. Rajkali, wife of Jagat Singh also consequently in this incident Davendra, Jagat Singh, Smt. Rajkali and Sukhdev also received injuries. After all this assault accused ran away. ( 3 ) IT is said P. W. 1 Bali Ram lodged a F. I. R. at the police station Budhana which was handed over at the police-station by Atar Singh. On the basis of it a Chik-report Ext. Ka 18 was prepare. A case was registered and P. W. 6, Bhanwar Singh Sub-Inspector who was present took up investigation. Bali Ram had in the meantime arranged for a truck and removed the victims to the District Hospital, Muzaffernagar. Bhanwar Singh completed Panchnama on the dead body of Gulzara and sent it for post mortem examination. Ka 18 was prepare. A case was registered and P. W. 6, Bhanwar Singh Sub-Inspector who was present took up investigation. Bali Ram had in the meantime arranged for a truck and removed the victims to the District Hospital, Muzaffernagar. Bhanwar Singh completed Panchnama on the dead body of Gulzara and sent it for post mortem examination. Thereafter the statement of Baliram was recorded, spot inspection was made and the statement of Hridaya Ram, Ghanli Singh and Atar Singh were also recorded. Blood-stained earth, etc. , were taken and necessary memoranda were prepared. ( 4 ) THE respondents accused have denied the incident and pleaded not guilty. Respondent accused Sardara had stated that he too had been falsely implicated and that his son Choti has sided with the prosecution side. Respondent-accused Rampal and Munshi had also denied their presence. Similarly respondent-accused Anup has stated that he had gone to save the parties and a spear blow was given to him. He has been falsely implicated. Similarly respondent - accused Nyadar had stated that he was victorious is a case against Gulzara and that he and his brother Anup had, therefore, been falsely implicated. Respondent-accused Gair has said that he being a cousin of Anup has been falsely implicated. Respondent accused Dhan Singh has stated that he never left the house, that Jagat Singh, Devendra, Onkar and Baliram had beaten him inside his house and when Gulzara and his wife had come to save them they were attacked. Vikram accused has stated that he too never left the house and his implication is for the reason that he had lodged the report of the case. Respondent Chote has admitted the prosecution case and has stated that he was standing with. When he had accompanied others for compromise he came to the Varandah of the house of Jagat Singh and was outside when the Marpit took place. ( 5 ) THE prosecution has examined three eyewitnesses namely, Baliram, Jagat Singh and Hirday Ram. It may be noticed that in this case Devendra, Jagat Singh, Smt. Rajkali and Sukhdev have received injuries on behalf of the prosecution and Gulzara also received punctured wound on behalf of the prosecution and had died. On the accused side Anup, Smt. Meeta and Dhan Singh had received injuries. It may be noticed that in this case Devendra, Jagat Singh, Smt. Rajkali and Sukhdev have received injuries on behalf of the prosecution and Gulzara also received punctured wound on behalf of the prosecution and had died. On the accused side Anup, Smt. Meeta and Dhan Singh had received injuries. The crucial question for determination before the trial Judge was as to the truth and accuracy of the prosecution allegation keeping in view the injuries sustained by the accused side. Three categorical finding of fact have been recorded by the trial Judge. Firstly, that the prosecution has failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused. In this connection it was noted that Anup had a spear injury on him and even if the entire prosecution story is believed his spear injury could not be explained. It was rightly emphasized by the trial Judge in this connection that/it was the prosecution side who has started attack by Ballam first and that deceased Gulzara died as a result of the spear having been used by the prosecution itself. Secondly, there is no explanation for the injuries sustained by Smt. Meeta. Even if the statement of the above witnesses examined by the prosecution is accepted there is no explanation for the injuries sustained by Smt. Meeta. The trial Judge has, therefore, rightly held that the instant case would be covered by law laid down by the Supreme Court in Luxmi Singh v. State of Bihar. Thirdly it has been found that will deed has not been legally proved, if that be so, the very basis of the prosecution case would be doubtful. On the aforesaid grounds the trial Judge has recorded acquittal of the respondents accused. ( 6 ) SRI Arvind Tripathi, learned A. P. P. for the State has taken us to the evidence and has criticized the judgment of the trial Judge with the help of that evidence. Sri A. P. P. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents accused has supported the Judgment of the trial Judge. After considering the entire material on the record and hearing the counsel for the parties it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial Judge are in any way obscured, perverse or beyond the record. Sri A. P. P. Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents accused has supported the Judgment of the trial Judge. After considering the entire material on the record and hearing the counsel for the parties it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial Judge are in any way obscured, perverse or beyond the record. It may be noted here that in appeal against acquittal we cannot set aside the acquittal only on the ground that another view could be taken and a flag careful scrutiny we are satisfied that appraisal of evidence does not suffer from any error, this appeal has to fail. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion this appeal fails and is dismissed. Respondents accused are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed. .