JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 1.9.89 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions case No. 61/87 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused respondents of the offence under Sections 307 and 323/34 I.P.C. 2. This appeal arises in the following circumstances : (i) On 10.9.87 at about 5 a.m. an oral report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by P.W. 3 Ramswaroop at Police Station Bhirani, before P.W. 11 Krishna Sharma stating that he used to cultivate the land of Sadi Ram and there was enmity between Sadi Ram and accused respondent Sardul Singh and upon this enmity, the accused respondent Sardul Singh was angry with P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop. On 9.9.87, at about 9 p.m. when P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop was going to the house of Sultan, the accused respondent Sardul Singh met on the way and he gave beating to P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop by fists. Thereafter P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop came to his house. At about 9.30 of the same day, the accused - respondent Sardul Singh and another accused Ram Kumar who was his brother came to the house of P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop, at that time, the accused respondent Sardul Singh was having a gun and accused Sardul Singh fired a gun shot towards PW. 3 Ram Swaroop which hit his left ear. After being freighted, he ran towards his 'Kotha' and hearing cry, P.W. 2 Mewa Singh and P.W. 1 Mahaveer who were brothers of P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop came there. The accused respondent Sardul Singh again fired which hit forehead of P.W. 1 Mahaveer and another accused Ram Kumar also beat P.W. 2 Mewa Singh with 'Jaili'. (ii) On this report, the police registered a case and started investigation and during investigation P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop was got medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad and his injury report is Ex. P. 7 and on his left ear, there was a lacerated wound and top of pinna of left ear was removed. Dr. Mahaveer Prasad assigned that injury as grievous one and for that X-ray Ex. P 8 has been proved. (iii) P.W. 2 Mewa Singh was also got medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad and he received two simple injuries by blunt object and his injury report is Ex. P. 9. Dr. Mahaveer Prasad assigned that injury as grievous one and for that X-ray Ex. P 8 has been proved. (iii) P.W. 2 Mewa Singh was also got medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad and he received two simple injuries by blunt object and his injury report is Ex. P. 9. (iv) The injury report of P.W. 1 Mahaveer is Ex. P. 10 which shows that he received a lacerated wound on his forehead and that injury was assessed that it might have been caused by.fire arm and as per X-ray, same is assigned as simple one. (v) The accused respondent Sardul Singh was also got medically examined by P.W. 6 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad and his injury report is Ex. D. 1 which shows that he also received four injuries by blunt object which were simple in nature. 3. The challan was filed. On 11.1.88, the accused respondent Sardul Singh was charged for offences under Sections 307 and 323/34 I.P.C. and accused respondent Ram Kumar was charged for offences under Sections 307/34 and 323 I.P.C. who denied the charges and claimed trial. (It may be stated that charge for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was framed against both the accused -respondent for injuries of P.W. 3 Ramswaroop and P.W. 1 Mahaveer.). 4. During trial, 12 witnesses were produced on behalf of the prosecution and statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 1.9.89 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them inter alia holding that : (i) since there is allegation that accused Sardul Singh caused injuries to P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop by fire arm and this injury as per medical examination report is not caused by fire arm and, therefore, did not accept the case of prosecution from this point of view. (ii) So far as injury of P.W. 1 Mahaveer is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that P.W. 1 Mahaveer cannot be said to be eye witness and similarly P.W. 2 Mewa Singh is also not an eye witness and further more since there is no eye witness to support the case of injured P.W. 1 Mahaveer, he did not accept the statement of P.W. 1 Mahaveer and further more P.W. 6 Dr. Mahaveer Prasad has not stated categorically that the injury which was received by P.W. 1 Mahaveer was caused by fire arm and he has only expressed only possibility that it might have been caused by fire arm and from this point of view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that benefit on this point should be given to the accused respondents. (iii) there is material contradictions between the statements of doctor and eye witnesses. (iv) no independent witness has been produced and P.W. 1 Mahaveer, P.W. 2 Mewa Singh and P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop are brothers and interested witnesses and thus, he acquitted the accused respondents of the charges levelled against them. 6. In this appeal, it has been argued on behalf of the State :that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have ignored minor contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses and further more injuries of accused respondents with gun and jaili have been proved and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge should be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is based on correct appreciation of evidence and does not call for interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that apart from the reasoning given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, there is one more aspect that goes against the prosecution and the same is that the prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries caused by the accused respondent Sardul Singh and from this point of view also, the case of the prosecution could not be accepted. 8. So far as P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop is concerned, there is material contradictions between the medical evidence and statement of P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop and hence the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held that prosecution has not proved in what manner P.W. 3 received injuries. 9. P.W. 1 Mahaveer has admitted that P.W. 2 Mewa Singh and P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop are his real brothers and he did not see any injury on the persons of accused respondent Sardul Singh, but he has admitted that P.W. 2 Mewa Singh was fighting with accused respondent Sardul Singh. 9. P.W. 1 Mahaveer has admitted that P.W. 2 Mewa Singh and P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop are his real brothers and he did not see any injury on the persons of accused respondent Sardul Singh, but he has admitted that P.W. 2 Mewa Singh was fighting with accused respondent Sardul Singh. P.W. 2 Mewa Singh has also admitted that P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop also caused injuries to the accused Sardul Singh and it is also correct to say that they were beating accused respondent Sardul Singh. P.W. 1 Mahaveer was also with them. P.W. 2 Mewa Singh has also admitted that before he came P.W. 1 Mahaveer and P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop had received injuries. He further admitted that he did not see any injury on the person of accused respondent Sardul Singh. 10. P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop has admitted that he did not see any injury on the person of accused Sardul Singh and he has further admitted that it is correct to say that when he came outside, P.W. 1 Mahaveer had already received gun injury. 11. Looking to the above statements, it may be stated that it means that even P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop has not seen the accused Sardul Singh causing injury to P.W. 1 Mahaveer and similarly P.W. 2 Mewa Singh has also not seen. Therefore, findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions on this point that P.W. 2 Mewa Singh and P.W. 3 Ram Swaroop cannot be regarded as eye witnesses for injury of P.W. 1 appears to be correct one. 12. From the statement of P.W. 2 Mewa Singh, it is also very much clear that they also beat accused respondent Sardul Singh and Sardul Singh had received injuries, but the prosecution witnesses have denied this fact. It means that they have not come with clean hands and they are suppressing the main story. In these circumstances, if the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not believed the case of prosecution, by doing so, he has committed no illegality. On the other hand, the findings recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge can be said to be based on correct appreciation of evidence and hence do not call for interference by this Court in this state appeal. 13. On the other hand, the findings recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge can be said to be based on correct appreciation of evidence and hence do not call for interference by this Court in this state appeal. 13. I see no reason to dissent from the findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which he acquitted both the accused respondents, namely Sardul Singh and Ram Kumar of the charges levelled against them. The conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to be correct one. Therefore, this state appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 1.9.89 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions case No. 61/87.Appeal dismissed. *******