PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) LABALLING order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna to be indefensible, Sankar Rana (hereinafter referred to as the 'informant') has moved this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'cr. P. C. ') for interference. The opposite parties 1 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial by learned Sessions Judge on the accusation to having committed offences punishable under Sections 148/149/307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short, 'ipc' ). ( 2 ) PROSECUTION versions sans unnecessary details is as follows : there was long drawn litigation between the informant's father Suka Rana (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and the accused persons. On 22-7-1984 at 6 a. m. informant (P. W. 1) along with the deceased went towards their agricultural field in order to draw in out water which had accumulated due to heavy rain on the previous night. While going towards their agricultural land, they found accused Jharu and Linga ploughing, a plot of their land locally known as "kalia behali", and accused Lotho Rana standing on the ridge of the land being armed with an axe. Deceased had sown paddy there. Deceased objected to the unauthorised acts of the said accused persons, and asked them as to why they were ploughing the land over which he had sowed paddy earlier; there was exchange of hot words between the deceased and accused Lotho. Said Lotho called other accused persons to come immediately and hearing his call, accused persons Bisu and Angada came running armed with a deadly weapons each. Accused Lotho assaulted the deceased with the axe he was holding, and thereafter other accused persons Jharu, Lingaraj, Lohor, Bisu, Bhuban, Abhi and Angad assaulted with the respective weapons they were holding. As a result of assaults, deceased breathad his last at the spot. When the informant tried to prevent assaults on his father, accused Bhubhan assaulted him on his back side. On hearing his cries for help, his younger brother Jayasingh (P. W. 8) came to the spot. Seeing him the accused persons also assaulted him. Accused Budu Gabir and Sans Janda came subsequently to the spot armed with lathis and assaulted the deceased and Jayasingh. Out of fear. On hearing his cries for help, his younger brother Jayasingh (P. W. 8) came to the spot. Seeing him the accused persons also assaulted him. Accused Budu Gabir and Sans Janda came subsequently to the spot armed with lathis and assaulted the deceased and Jayasingh. Out of fear. Informant ran to Harijan pada and informed about the occurrence to Chenu Harijan who came to the spot and found dead body of Suka and carried Jayasingh to his house. Oral report was given by informant at Khariar P. S. on 22-7-1984 at 7 a. m. On the basis of report given by informant investigation was undertaken. When report was being given by informant, accused Lotho voluntarily appeared at the police station and was arrested by the Investigating Officer. Since he had injuries on his person, he was sent for medical examination. Similarly, informant and his brother Jayashingh Rana were sent for medical examination. All the accused persons except Lotho who had surrendered voluntarily, were arrested on 22-7-1984 at 5 p. m. House of accused Lotho was searched from where several weapons like lathis, axes were seized. Similarly, search was conducted at the houses of other accused persons, and various weapons suspected to bayed been used were seized. After completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted. Accused persons pleaded innocence. According to them, case was launched falsely to implicate them. ( 3 ) IN order to further its case, ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom P. W. 1 is informant and P. W. 8 is his brother as noted earlier. P. W. 2 is post occurrence witness who stated that there was extra judicial confession before him by accused Abhi about fatal assaults on the deceased. P. W. 7 stated that on hearing shouts he had come to the spot, and found all the accused persons armed with various weapons were present. He also claimed to have seen a part of the assault on the deceased. Learned trial Judge disbelieved extra judicial confession claimed to have been made before P. W. 2. He found the prosecution evidence to be incredible and discarded it primarily on three grounds namely; (i) wide variation between medical evidence and oral testimony of eye-witnesses; (ii) unexplained serious injury on accused Lotho, and (iii) material difference between version as indicated in the F. I. R. and as stated in Court. He found the prosecution evidence to be incredible and discarded it primarily on three grounds namely; (i) wide variation between medical evidence and oral testimony of eye-witnesses; (ii) unexplained serious injury on accused Lotho, and (iii) material difference between version as indicated in the F. I. R. and as stated in Court. 3-A. So far as difference in version is concerned, it was noticed that inflicting of a single head injury was stated in F. I. R. Medical Officer (P. W. 9) has opined that single head injury is sufficient to cause death of a person, and conspiously P. W. 1 did not say who dealt that blow. Regarding other injury on the deceased also, P. W. 1 completely contradicted evidence of Medical Officer. P. W. 8 did not say who assaulted on which part of body of his father. According to P. W. 1, accused Lohuru assaulted the deceased on the head with a lathi. But evidence of Doctor was to the effect that injury on the head was possible only by sharp cutting weapon like an axe. P. W. 1 has significantly stated that accused Abhi assaulted his father with the sharp side of the axe, so also accused Bisu with sharp side of a spade, and accused Lohuru gave repeated lathi blows on the head of his father. He specifically stated that Lotho gave axe blows on the hands. Angada gave Morha blows on the chest, Doctor opined that if successive blows with a lathi having 3" girth are given number of injuries would be caused. But only one incised wound 5 x 1. 5 x 2 c. m. on the vertex over left parietal bone was noticed on the deceased. It was noticed that accused Lotho has sustained a head injury. The Doctor had opined that duration of said injury was 6 hours, which coincided with time given by the prosecution. No explanation was offered by prosecution as to how this injury was caused on the head of accused Lotho. In the F. I. R. it was stated that all the accused persons came with lathis and assaulted Jayashingh Rana (P. W. 8 ). No explanation was offered by prosecution as to how this injury was caused on the head of accused Lotho. In the F. I. R. it was stated that all the accused persons came with lathis and assaulted Jayashingh Rana (P. W. 8 ). Informant in paragraphs-3 of his evidence in Court stated that his younger brother came to the spot on hearing cry for help made by his father, while he was being assaulted and accused Bhuban obstructed him from his front side and gave four lathi blows on his upper arm. There was no mention about this in the F. I. R. P. W. 8 is paragraph-1 of his evidence in Court has stated that accused Angada obstructed him from him front, which was entirely different from what informant had stated. Further, P. W. 8 has stated that accused Bhuban chased him and gave four lathi blows on his head and arms. Informant's version was different. He had stated all four blows had been given on the upper arm of P. W. 8. Further P. W. 8 had stated about only four blows but the Medical Officer (P. W. 9) found six injuries on his person. There was no explanation as to how there could be more injuries, about which neither P. W. 1 nor P. W. 8 breathed a word. Incidentally, learned trial Judge found that there was no enquiry conducted by the I. O. regarding possession of the disputed land in question. Evidence of P. W. 1 was also found incredible, since his version had changed from stage to stage. Is the F. I. R. it was stated that accused Lotho claimed the land to be his own. Though the informant claimed about partition, no evidence in that regard was brought on record. In fact, in paragraph-3 of his evidence in Court informant has stated that deceased unyoked the bullocks of accused Jharu, and accused Lotho challenged him as to why he was unyoking the plougha. It is statement made during investigation before the Investigating Officer was also highlighted. Investigating Officer has stated that informant had stated before him that land appertaining to plot No. 517 of Khata No. 55 of village Damapalla measuring A. 1. 70 decimals though stood in the name of his grand-father, his elder father Lohar Rana made arrangements for enjoyment of the land by his elder father Lotho Rana. Investigating Officer has stated that informant had stated before him that land appertaining to plot No. 517 of Khata No. 55 of village Damapalla measuring A. 1. 70 decimals though stood in the name of his grand-father, his elder father Lohar Rana made arrangements for enjoyment of the land by his elder father Lotho Rana. From this learned trial Judge concluded that initially possession of Lohar and Lotho was admitted. But in Court, a different version was presented. On a combined reading of F. I. R. and evidence of informant, it was concluded that deceased had gone to the land and unyoked the bullocks of accused persons when trouble ensued. Actual state of affairs has been suppressed by prosecution. In view of the aforesaid infirmities, acquittal as aforesaid was directed. ( 4 ) IN support of revision application, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that conclusions of learned trial Judge are erroneous. According to him minor discrepancies should not have been highlighted to throw out the prosecution version in its entirity. Learned counsel for accused persons on the other hand, supported the acquittal. ( 5 ) LEARNED trial Judge appears to have proceeded on erroneous legal premises so far as preference to be given in the matter of evaluation of evidence. It would he erroneous to accord undue primacy to hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to excludes the eye-witnesses' account, which has to be tested independently and not treated as "variable" keeping medical evidence as "constant". Where eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. The importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process was emphasised by apex Court in State of U. P. v. Krishna Gopal, AIR 1988 SC 2154 : (1989 Cri LJ 288 ). Eye-witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence including medical evidence as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the version presented, consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation and many such factors. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the version presented, consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation and many such factors. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. Conclusion of learned trial Judge that medical evidence scores over eye-witnesses' account is not legally sound. But the reasonings given by him to disbelieve P. Ws. 1 and 8 are on terra firma. ( 6 ) SECOND reason ascribed by learned trial Judge for directing acquittal, is non-explanation of serious head injury sustained by accused Lotho. Now the question is whether the prosecution has explained the injury and if the answer is in the negative, what would be its effect ? Non-explanation assumes great importance in certain cases. In each and every case where prosecution fails to explain injury found on some of the accused, prosecution case does not get automatically rejected without any further probe. Failure of prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that evidence of prosecution witnesses relating to incident is not or at any rate not wholly true. Some times injuries probabilise plea taken by accused persons. With reference to views earlier expressed in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 : (1976 Cri LJ 1736) and Moher Rai and Bhareth Rai v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1281 : (1968 Cri LJ 1479), the legal position was summarised as follows :- where the prosecution fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follows : (1) that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is unture, and that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. It was further observed that :"in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstances from which Court can drew the following inferences :- (1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; (2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable. (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. "this position was also reiterated in Vijayee Singh v. State of U. P. , 1990 II SVLR (Cri) 109 : (1990 Cri LJ 1510 ). Non-explanation assumes greater importance where evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where defence given a version which competes with that of prosecution. But where evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy and where Court can separate truth from falsehood, mere fact that injuries are not explained by prosecution cannot be itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently whole cases. Much depends on fact and circumstances of each cases. In view of the accepted hostility between parties, and gaping holes pointed out by learned trial Judge in the evidence of informant and his brother, non-explaiantion of injury on accused Lotho certainly corrodes credibility of prosecution case. It is to be noted that before any adverse inference is drawn, the nature of the injury, the possibility of it having been sustained during the occurrence has to be considered. If the injury is superficial, the Court in a given case may not attach any importance. Learned trial Judge was justified in taking note of the nature of injury, and consequently treating it is a vital weak link. Additionally, learned trial Judge has highlighted vital discrepancies in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 8, some of relevant aspects have been referred to supra. Learned trial Judge was justified in taking note of the nature of injury, and consequently treating it is a vital weak link. Additionally, learned trial Judge has highlighted vital discrepancies in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 8, some of relevant aspects have been referred to supra. Though the F. I. R. is not intended to be a catalogue of events, it is required to contain basis features of the prosecution cases, since it sets law into motion. Where version of witnesses in Court is materially different from one given in the F. I. R. , which is lodged by an eye-witness, it becomes a circumstances which has to be gauzed while evaluating acceptability of prosecution version. ( 7 ) VIEW taken by learned trial Judge in holding the accused persons not guilty is not unreasonable or perverse. We find no merit in this revision application, which is accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) K. L. ISSRANI, J. :- I agree. Revision dismissed. .