G. D. DUBE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Second Additional Sessions Judge Mirzapur acquitting the respondents of the charges under section 307 read with section 34 of I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE occurrence had allegedly taken place in this case near the bamboo clump situated near the house of Yadunath in village Mishirdhap P. S. Chilha district Mirzapur. In the First Information. Report lodged at 5. 05 p. m. in the aforesaid police station the reporter Balram P. W. 1 had stated that at about 8 P. M. Dharmpal P. W. 2 had gone to the house of Yadunath P. W. 6 in connection with the marriage. At that time he had gone to ease near the bamboo elum. At that time Bishambhar, Mahendra, Sajawal and Brahmohari surrounded him. Mahendra was armed with a Gandasa and the others were armed with Lathis. They assaulted Dharmpal. On hearing the groans of Dharmpal witnesses had arrived. On their arrival the miscreants ran away. ( 3 ) AFTER the occurrence the reporter went to the police station alongwith injured and lodged a report. The injured was sent to the district hospital Mirzapur. He was examined at 9. 45 P. M. on the very date of occurrence. One lacerated wound was found on the head near the right eye brow. One lacerated wound was found on the left side of chest and other on the left arm. One brusine was found on the right side chest and another on the right forearm. The investigation had been done by P. W. 5 Ram Priti Ram and P. W. 9 Brij Bhushan. ( 4 ) IN order to substantiate its case the prosecution had examined 9 witnesses. P. W. 2 Balram, P. W. 3 Dharmpal and P. W. 6 Yadunath Singh are eye witnesses. The rest are formal witnesses. The accused had pleaded not guilty to the charges. They had not produced any witness in defence. After assessing the evidence produced by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution case was not established beyond reasonable doubt. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for appellant and respondent. It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the light of burning gas lantern and electric bulbs was present at the spot hence respondents could have been easily recognized. ( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for appellant and respondent. It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the light of burning gas lantern and electric bulbs was present at the spot hence respondents could have been easily recognized. It was urged that there was no reason to disbelieve the statements of Yadunath Singh, Dharmpal and Balram as they were natural witnesses. Dharmpal was an injured witness and his evidence should have been accepted. ( 6 ) THE trial court has observed that if there was ample light at the spot then the respondents would not have chosen to attack Dharmpal at the alleged spot A as shown in the site plan Ext. Ka. 9. The learned Sessions Judge had also held that if the occurrence had taken place at the alleged spot than blood should have been found at the spot. ( 7 ) IT is noteworthy that the investigation had proceeded in a very careless manner. P. W. 5. Ram Prati Ram had admitted in cross examination that he had not made any attempt to search the blood at the spot. When the very place of occurrence is disputed the presence of blood at the spot plays an important role. Yadunath Singh P. W. 6 had stated that Dharmpal was brought to his house. The blood had fallen at the spot there Dharmpal was kept. He had got it cleaned on account of arrival of Bhrm at his house. As regards the blood at the actual place of Marpit this witness had given a queer explanation that Probably dogs may have licked away the blood an that is why the blood was not found. However, the absence of recovery of blood on the spot makes a great dent in the prosecution version. The lower court has expressed a grave doubt out the lodging of the report: Yadunath Singh as stated that he has sent his son to ensure that n other person is named in the First Information Report. The First Information Report indicates that injured was brought to the police station and then a report was lodged. Whereas Balram had stated that he had written the report in his village. The First Information Report indicates that injured was brought to the police station and then a report was lodged. Whereas Balram had stated that he had written the report in his village. ( 8 ) SINCE the place of occurrence was not established from the statement of the witnesses, it is difficult to believe the prosecution story that the respondents would have chosen to assault Dharmpal near a place where Bhrat had already arrived in front of the house of Yadunath Singh. There would have been 100 persons. In the vicinity of such a large ashembore the respondents could not have dared to attack the victim. For the reasons mentioned above we come to the conclusion that the prosecution version was not of such a character which could inspire confidence. The lower court had rightly acquitted the respondents. ( 9 ) THE appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .