Judgment D.G. Deshpande, J.— This is an appeal filed by the State against acquittal of the two accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We have heard Mr. Pravin Singhal, the learned APP for the appellant-State and Ms. Ruchita Dhuru who was appointed by us to defend the accused. 2. The accused No. 1 is the eldest brother in the family. He had three more brothers. One of whom was Suresh who was the victim of the mur-der, other was complainant, Ramdas is the third brother, and fourth brother was Krishna. All of them were staying at Keravade occupying different rooms in the same house. Accused No. 2 Rukmini is the wife of accused No. 1. PW 11 Chandrabhaga is the widow of the deceased brother Suresh and PW 1 Sitabai is the wife of the complainant. 3. According to the prosecution over a trifle quarrel in the family in the afternoon accused No. 1 aided and abeted by his wife Rukmini (accused No. 2) killed Suresh by an axe. In this background the investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed and accused were made to face the trial, which ultimately ended in acquittal of the accused. 4. Before hearing the argu-ments, we pointed out to the learned APP that since this is an appeal against acquittal, the prosecution will have to firstly show from the judgment of the Trial Court that the judgment is perverse. We clarified that only because this Court can come to a different conclusion or take a different view of the situation, the acquittal cannot be converted into conviction. The learned APP conceded to this legal position. 5. We were thereafter taken through the entire judgment and the evidence of the prosecution. At the outset, we clarify that nothing was shown to us in the judgment of the trial court from which it could be said that the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is perverse. There was not a single incident from which it could be inferred that the Trial Court had left out what is admissible and accepted what is not admissible. The reasonings given by the Trial Court are based on the evidence and facts which the prosecution tried to prove and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said reasonings. 6. The reasonings given by the Trial Court are based on the evidence and facts which the prosecution tried to prove and we do not find any reason to interfere with the said reasonings. 6. The most important aspect of the matter is that accused No. 1 Babu Ravaji Chambhar @ Chavan has plea-ded in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that firstly he was not guilty of murder and secondly and in the alternative he has to act in self-defence. It is an admitted and proved fact that there were several injuries on the person of the accused No. 1. He was examined by the doctor - PW 12 Pawankumar Balkrishna Mohite on 4-1-1985 i.e., within 48 hours of the incident and the doctor found the following seven injuries on the person of the accused No. 1: (1) Imprint abrasion 3 in num-ber around left elbow poste-rior region, each measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. blackish red in colour, aged within 48 hours. (2) Grazes on the pina of the left ear on outer side 1/2 cm. x 1/2. cm. red to blue scab present, aged within 48 hours. (3) Scratch on the right shoul-der 2 cm. below and laterally 10 cms. from midlines on posterior side, 1/4" x 1 cm. aged within 48 hours. (4) Grazes left buttuck 1 cm. x 1/4 cm., 5 cms. lateral to the mid-line at the level of illic spine anteriorly, aged within 48 hours, bluish red scab present. (5) Scratch on the left side of base of penis 1/2 cm. x 1/4 cm. red to blue scab pre-sent, aged within 48 hours. (6) C.L.W. 1 cm. x 1 cm. on the shin of left tibia 10 cm. below — Tubrocity, blackish blue scab present, aged within 48 hours. (7) Heamotma around the injury No. 6, 4 cm. x 4 cm. bluish in colour, aged within 48 hours. Out of these seven injuries, injury Nos. 6 and 7 according to the doctor were possible by iron rod and injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were possible by uneven tip of iron bar. 7. The aforesaid fact will clearly show that the accused No. 1 was injured with the iron rod which is his defence. 8. Out of these seven injuries, injury Nos. 6 and 7 according to the doctor were possible by iron rod and injury Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were possible by uneven tip of iron bar. 7. The aforesaid fact will clearly show that the accused No. 1 was injured with the iron rod which is his defence. 8. The Trial Court rightly appre-ciated the evidence on record and firstly came to the conclusion that unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, it was necessary for the accused to discharge his burden of proving any exception under the Indian Penal Code, namely exercising the right of private defence or self-defence. 9. The Trial Court has consi-dered the evidence of three eye-witnesses. It was found by the Trial Court that all the three eye-witnesses are giving different version of the incident, namely, PW 9 Ramdas who has lodged the FIR, PW 11 Chandra-bhaga and the PW 1 Sitabai are inconsistent in their story regarding the manner in which the incident or assault had occurred. All the three eye-witnesses were at different places and could not have seen the incident according to the Trial Court in the manner in which they have stated. 10. Apart from this, the Trial Court found that for the reasons best known to it, the prosecution did not examine one of the most important persons in the family i.e., Anusiya — mother of four brothers. According to the Trial Court she was the best witness because she was inside the house right from the beginning since when the dispute started. She could have according to the Trial Court thrown much light as to what happened inside the house, who went out of the house first and when accused No. 1 followed the deceased with an axe in his hand. 11. The prosecution has tried to prove that the accused was seen carrying the blood stained axe soon after the incident. This aspect is considered by the Trial Court as a strong piece of evidence against the accused. However, according to the Trial Court this itself cannot be a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused No. 1 regarding the charge of murder. In the circumstances of the case, we have no reasons to disagree with the findings of the Trial Court. 12. The Trial Court has minutely considered the evidence direct as well as circumstantial. However, according to the Trial Court this itself cannot be a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused No. 1 regarding the charge of murder. In the circumstances of the case, we have no reasons to disagree with the findings of the Trial Court. 12. The Trial Court has minutely considered the evidence direct as well as circumstantial. The quarrel that occurred in the house in the morning was a very trifle one not giving any insightment or motive for the accused No. 1 to kill his own brother. The Trial Court has observed that all the three eye-witnesses were stating against the accused more out of their moral conviction about his involving in the offence than seeing the incident actually and personally. 13. In summing up the evidence, the Trial Court has observed as under: “To sum up, since the evidence of 3 eye-witnesses is such that it makes me feel that the incident is not being put up before the Court as it actually took place, the accused No. 2 Rukmini as far as charge of biting Ramdas that levelled against her and accused No. 1 Babu regarding the charge of inflicting deliberate injuries on the person of deceased Suresh, get a benefit of doubt.” These conclusions cannot be called to be perverse or without any basis from the record. When therefore after considering the entire prosecution evidence, the evidence of eye-wit-nesses and the circumstantial evi-dence and minutely noting the discre-pancies and contradictions in their evidence, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt. We have no reason to interfere with this order. In the result, we pass the following order: Order Appeal of the State against acquittal of both the accused is dismissed. Bail bond of both the accused which they have given pursuant to action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code stands cancelled. Appeal dismissed.