JUDGMENT S.K. Varma, J. - The learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Budaun convicted the appellants Premi, Gayani and Devi Dass under Sections 452 I.P.C., 307/34 I.P.C. and 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment, three years rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment respectively, sentence to run concurrently vide judgment and order dated 18.6.79. It is against this judgment that the present appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution version was that about three or four years ago Premi, Gayani and their father Devi Dass were prosecuted for the murder of Prem Sahai's son. Raghubir (P.W. 3) happened to be a witness for prosecution in that trial hence the appellants bore ill will against Raghubir. In the mid night on 15/16.1.77. Raghubir was sleeping in his Kotha in village Risauli, P.S. Bilsi District Budaun. Ved Wati alias Budh Wati wife of Raghubir was also sleeping there. There was the light of electric bulb in the Kothari. The appellant Devi Dass armed with a country made pistol and appellants Premi and Gayani both armed with dandas arrived at about mid night and caught hold of the hands of Raghubir and Devi Dass caused hurt with the butt of the country made pistol. On raising alarm Ved Wati awoke. The appellants also assaulted her and then they ran away. Mathuri (P.W. 4), Balwant and Shishpal saw all the appellants going out of the house of Raghubir. Then they entered the house and found Raghubir and his wife Budh Wati alias Ved Wati in an injured condition. Raghubir narrated the incident to the witnesses. Raghubir went to police station Bilsi District Budaun and lodged an oral first information report (Ex. Ka 2) on 16.1.77 at 9.30 a.m. after covering 8 kilo meters from village Bilsi. 3. Dr. Arjun Kumar (P.W. 8) conducted the medical examination of Raghubir on 16.1.77 at 10.05 a.m. and found the following injury on his person as per injury report (Ex. Ka 12): "Incised wound over right frontal region of scalp 9 cm above the root of nose, size 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, there is visible fracture of the underlying bone at the surface of wound, patient complaints of bleeding from both , sides of nose, clotted blood present inside the nose of both sides, edges clean cut, wound is gapping, direction oblique shape." 4. Dr. Dr. Arjun Kumar also examined Budh Wati at 10.25 a.m. on 16.1.77 and found the following injuries on her person as per injury report (Ex. Ka-1 3): "(i) Incised wound over left occipital region of scalp 8 cm above and behind left ear, size 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, edge clean cut, wound is gaping. Suspected fracture of under lying bone, advised X-ray, the injury under observation, regarding the nature, cause& by sharp edged object. Direction forward backward. (ii) Abrasion over right temple of scalp 1 cm outer to outer angle of right eye, size 3 cm x 2 cm bluish colour, simple, caused by blunt object. (iii)Abrasion over right side of forehead 2 cm above the right eye-brow, size 2 cm x 1 cm, blackish colour, simple, caused by blunt object." 5. Raghubir was discharged from the District Hospital, Budaun on 16.2.77. Budh Wati died on 16.1.77 at 9.00 p.m. in the District Hospital, Budaun, Dr. V.K. Srivastava (P.W. 1) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Budh Wati on 17.1.77 at 3.00 p.m. and found the following ante-mortem injuries on her} person as per post mortem report (Ex. Ka-1): (i) Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm x cm on left side of scalp 9 cm above the left eye. (ii) Contusion 3 cm x cm an the right side of forehead 3 cm above the right eye-brow. (iii)Contusion 3 cm x 1 cm on the right side 3 cm anterior to tragus of right ear. (iv) Clotted blood present in right ear. (v) Abrasion with contusion 10 cm x 3 cm on the upper arm 19 cm above the right elbow joint. (vi) An abrasion 2 cm x cm on the inner aspect of little finger of left hand." 6. After usual investigation the charge sheet (Ex. Ka-9) was submitted against the appellants. The prosecution examined Raghubir (P.W. 3) and Mathuri (P.W. 4) as eye witnesses. Some formal witnesses were also examined. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed that Prem Sahai whose son was murdered, had falsely implicated the appellants in this case. They examined Naresh Chand (D.W. 1) in defence. The learned V. Addl. District & Sessions Judge Budaun convicted all the appellants as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 7. Some formal witnesses were also examined. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed that Prem Sahai whose son was murdered, had falsely implicated the appellants in this case. They examined Naresh Chand (D.W. 1) in defence. The learned V. Addl. District & Sessions Judge Budaun convicted all the appellants as aforesaid. Hence this appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as A.G.A. The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge on several grounds. It has been argued that the first information report does not disclose any source of light in this mid night occurrence, hence the culprits could not have been recognised. It has also been argued that there is material contradiction between medical evidence and ocular version given by the eye witnesses. It has also been argued that the eye witnesses have introduced facts in their deposition and have made improvements and have also made certain embellishments over and above the first information report and the witnesses are, therefore, unreliable. 8. We may examine the medical evidence first. Dr. Arjun Kumar (P.W. 8) found only one injury of Raghubir (P.W. 3) and that injury was an incised wound with clean cut margins. The wound was gaping. Dr. Arjun Kumar admitted in cross-examination that he saw the injury of Raghubir with the help of lens and then he wrote in the injury report that the margins were clean cut. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury could have been caused by some sharp edged weapon. This injury could not have been caused by blunt object or by the 'butt of a pistol in the normal course of events. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that because of the statement of Dr. S.C. Sharma (P.W. 9) that this injury could have been caused by a blunt weapon such as the butt of a pistol, the statement of Dr. Arjun Kumar (P.W. 9) that the injury had clean cut margin, can be ignored, because the injury was on the scalp. We are unable to agree with this line of argument Dr. S.C. Sharma (P.W.9) has admitted in cross-examination that depressed fracture can be caused by the force of a blunt object as well as a sharp edged weapon. Arjun Kumar (P.W. 9) that the injury had clean cut margin, can be ignored, because the injury was on the scalp. We are unable to agree with this line of argument Dr. S.C. Sharma (P.W.9) has admitted in cross-examination that depressed fracture can be caused by the force of a blunt object as well as a sharp edged weapon. The fact remains that the margins of injury of Raghubir (P.W. 3) were found to be clean cut under a magnifying glass and it is not explained by the prosecution evidence as to how this injury was caused by butt of a pistol. 9. Similarly Raghubir's wife Budh Wati who was also examined by Dr. Arjun Kumar was found to have an incised wound over left occipital region of scalp 8 cm above and behind left ear. This injury had clean cut margin and the wound was gaping. Dr. Arjun Kumar has admitted in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination that he had examined this injury with the help of magnifying glass and had found the margin of the injury to be clean cut. In the opinion of Dr. Arjun Kumar, even this injury could be caused by sharp edged weapon and could not have been caused by a blunt weapon. The prosecution was not able to explain as to how this injury was caused with the help of the butt of a pistol. Dr. B.K. Srivastava (P.W.1) found this injury as, lacerated wound being 6 cm x 1 cm x cm on left side of scalp 9 cm above left eye. The learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that because the depth of this injury is only cm, such injury could not be caused by a sharp edged heavy weapon. This can only be caused by blunt object. We are unable to agree with this argument of the learned Sessions Judge. Dr. Arjun Kumar had examined the injury' with magnifying glass. The learned Sessions Judge wrongly opined that Dr.Arjun Kumar could not distinguish between incised and contused wound. The opinion of the learned Sessions Judge that the medical evidence does not contradict the oral evidence, is therefore misconceived. 10. Thus we find that according to medical evidence both the injuries had been caused by sharp edged weapons. The oral testimonies of Raghubir (P.W.3) and Mathuri (P.W. 4) were contradicted by medical evidence on record and were of unreliable character. 11. 10. Thus we find that according to medical evidence both the injuries had been caused by sharp edged weapons. The oral testimonies of Raghubir (P.W.3) and Mathuri (P.W. 4) were contradicted by medical evidence on record and were of unreliable character. 11. The next question raised during arguments is regarding the availability of light. The first information report is silent about any source of light. Raghbir (P.W. 3) has introduced the presence of electric bulb during his deposition. He has, however, stated in his cross-examination that the electric connection was made available in his house less than one year ago. This statement was recorded on 9.5.79 whereas the occurrence took place on 17.1.77. Naturally the presence of electric bulb became doubtful because it was not mentioned in the first information report and according to admission of Raghubir (P.W. 3) even electric connection was not available in the house of the victim before middle of 1978. Moreover, Raghubir (P.W. 3) had not stated about the presence of any source of light during his statement before the Investigating Officer under Section 11 Cr.P.C. This is a material omission which relates to very important fact. For all these reasons we find that there was no source of light available to the eve witnesses to recognise the assailants. 12. Mathuri (P.W. 4) has merely deposed that he saw the appellants going out of the house of Raghubir. He has not seen the occurrence himself. The only eye witness of the incident was Raghubir (P.W. 3). It is true that he is an injured witness but when he contradicts the medical evidence, the credibility-of his evidence has to be scrutinised with great caution. He is not a simple, rustic, villager. He admits in cross-examination that he was a witness for prosecution in criminal case regarding the murder of Rajendra son of Prem Sahai. In this case the appellants were accused persons. He also admits that about seven or eight years before this incident, one Saheb Singh was murdered in the village and the criminal case of that murder had proceeded against this witness and (P.W. 4) Mathuri. He also admits that Prem Sahai had lodged criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. against Mahendra Singh etc. In that criminal case Raghubir (P.W. 3) had appeared as a witness for Prem Sahai. He also admits that Prem Sahai had lodged criminal case under Section 307 I.P.C. against Mahendra Singh etc. In that criminal case Raghubir (P.W. 3) had appeared as a witness for Prem Sahai. He also admits that in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. lodged by Bachey, he had appeared as a witness for Bachey. He further admits that in the litigation between Babu Ram and Angad, he had appeared as a witness against Babu Ram. He has further admitted that Jeewan Murao was murdered and the murder trial proceeded against Munshi, Umrao and Jalim. There had been some altercation regarding a buffalo between these rival parties one day before that murder and Raghubir (P.W. 3) gave evidence regarding that altercation. 13. It is also note worthy that there are contradictions in the statement of Raghubir (P.W. 3). We find no explanation in the first information report lodged by Raghubir as to why it does not mention that the appellants Premi and Gayani caught hold of his hands. In fact, the first information report mentions four assailants and two of them are said to have caught him without haming the assailants. The first information report also does not mention that the appellants Premi and Gayani assaulted Budh Wati with dandas. In his deposition before the learned Sessions Judge, Raghubir (P.W. 3) had made improvement by saying that Premi and Gayani were the appellants who caught hold of his hands and that they had dandas with them. They used the dandas to assault his wife Budh Wati. Before the Investigating Officer, Raghubir has not deposed that Premi and Gayani gave danda blows to his wife but in court he stated that both these appellants assaulted his wife with dandas. These contradictions have been explained by the learned Sessions Judge as minor contradictions which could be ignored. We are of the opinion that the contradictions relate to the weapon in the hands of the assailants and the probabilities are that these contradiction have come in evidence because there was darkness and weapons of the assailants could not be seen. This position is also consistent with the contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence. 14. It would thus appear that the incident occurred in the dead of night. Raghubir and his wife were sleeping. Both of them were given blows with sharp edged weapons by some assailants. This position is also consistent with the contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence. 14. It would thus appear that the incident occurred in the dead of night. Raghubir and his wife were sleeping. Both of them were given blows with sharp edged weapons by some assailants. There was no source of light and the assailants could not be seen. There was long standing enmity between the complainant Raghubir and the appellants. Complainant therefore, took opportunity to falsely implicate the appellants in this crime. 15. For all these reasons we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond doubt. 16. We, therefore, allow the appeal and acquit the appellants Premi, Gayani and Devi Dass of the charges levelled against them. They are on bail. They need not surrender. The bonds and the sureties filed in pursuance of the trial court's order, stand discharged.