JUDGMENT 1. - This is a State appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.1.1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore by which he acquitted the accused Doongariya for the offence under Secs. 307, 307/34, 324, 324/34, 325/34 IPC and under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act and other accused Samiya and Soojiya were also acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : PW 1 Keriya lodged a report Ex.P 1 in the police station Modra District Jalore on 27.4.1981 with the allegations that his brother Gomla PW 2 had gone to village Dhansa and in the meantime, accused Samiya. Doongariya and Soojiya and one another person Ajiya came and thereafter they beat PW 1 Keriya. PW 2 Gomal. PW 3 Shantiya and PW 4 Nathiya and at the time of incident accused Doongariya was having a gun and he fired from his gun and caused injuries and this in incident PW 1 Keriya PW 2 Gomal PW 3 Shantiya and PW 4 Nathiya received fire arms injuries. Note : That Ajiya is a person, who died during the incident and there is a cross case for the murder of Ajiya against the complaint party in this case. 3. On this report, the police registered a case and thereafter, investigation was started and PW 1 Keriya, PW 2 Gomal and PW 3 Shantiya and PW 4 Nathiya were got examined medically and challan was filed against the accused appellants. The accused Doongariya, Samiya and Soojiya were charged for the offence under Secs. 307, 324, 324/34, 325, 325/34 I.P.C. and apart from this charges under Secs. 25 and 27 were also framed against the accused Doongariya. The accused denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as ten witnesses and got exhibited 33 documents. No witness has been examined in defence and eleven documents were got exhibited in defence. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 4.1.1982 acquitted all the three accused appellants of all the charges framed against them holding : 1. That there is a cross case of the same incident in which from the side of accused party, one Ajiya died during the incident and the complainant party is facing trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Ajiya. 2. That there is a cross case of the same incident in which from the side of accused party, one Ajiya died during the incident and the complainant party is facing trial for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for the murder of Ajiya. 2. That the prosecution witnesses have not explained the injuries sustained by the accused party, on whose side one of their relatives Ajiya had expired as an outcome of such injury and thus, non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution has made the case of the prosecution doubtful and thus. Prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and thus has not presented the true version. 3. That the prosecution witnesses who may 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. 4. That evidence of the prosecution witnesses is neither clear nor cogent, much less independent, but is highly interested, improbable, inconsistent and discredited. 4. Against the said judgment and order dated 4.1.1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, the present appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan.Note : During the pendency of this appeal, accused Doongariya has died and, therefore, the state appeal against him should stand abated. 5. In this appeal, the argument raised by the learned public prosecutor for the State of Rajasthan is that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in holding that the injuries of the accused has not been explained by the prosecution and therefore the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be upheld. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 7. I have heard the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused respondent and perused the record of the case. 8. From perusing the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and they do not suffer from any infirmity. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons in acquitting the accused appellant of the charges framed against them. 9. In Ram Narain and Ors. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons in acquitting the accused appellant of the charges framed against them. 9. In Ram Narain and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (AIR 1972 SC 2545) , the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: "Where the eye witnesses do not mention any thing about the injuries on the person of the accused it is unsafe to rely on their evidence completely unless the same is corroborated by independent evidence." 10. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly not relied on the prosecution witnesses since they do not explain the injuries on the person of the accused and in such circumstances, prosecution version, if it is found by the learned Sessions Judge doubtful, he has not committed any mistake. No case for interference with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge is made out. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******