K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the udgment, dated 13-10-2000, in S. C. Sfo. 8/1997 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. By the impugned judgment, the sole accused therein was acquitted. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows. P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased are Brothers. P. W. 2 suspected that his wife had illicit relationship with the accused. In that connection a quarrel took between the accused and the deceased. Then P. Ws. l to 3 and the deceased questioned the accused about his conduct with the wife of P. W. 2. On 23-8-1994, deceased and P. W. I were returning from a cement factory. As they reached Apollo road, P. W. 2 and the deceased exchanged some abuses. P. W. I and the deceased questioned the accused about his conduct with their sister-in-law. Immediately accused took out a knife from his waist and stabbed P. W. I on his left side. P. W. I fell down. Accused again stabbed him on his right thigh. Deceased intervened to rescue P. W. I. Accused stabbed him also. Bothp. W. l and the deceased fell down. Accused threw his knife at the deceased and ran away. It caused a cut injury on the left hand of the deceased. Police came in a jeep and shifted the injured to a hospital. P. W. I gave Ex. P-1 report. P. W. 10 recorded the statement of P. W. I and registered a case under Sec. 307 IPC. He examined witnesses including the injured. He observed the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P-9-rough sketch. He examined the deceased in the presence of mediators and seized one knife, stick, control earth, bloodstained earth etc. , from the scene of occurrence. The deceased succumbed to injuries on 19-9-1994. Thereafter, the section of law was altered to 302 IPC. P. W. I 1 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. He forwarded the material objects to chemical analyzer. Accused was arrested and sent for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, P. W. ll filed a charge sheet. Charges under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC were framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 15 documents besides M. Os. 1 to 3- case properties. He forwarded the material objects to chemical analyzer. Accused was arrested and sent for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, P. W. ll filed a charge sheet. Charges under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC were framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 15 documents besides M. Os. 1 to 3- case properties. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges. It accordingly acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment, against which the Stated preferred this appeal. ( 3 ) THE specific charges against the accused were that on 23-8-1994 he stabbed the deceased with a knife near his left chest as a result of which the deceased died on 19-9-1994, at the same day time and place he stabbed P. Ws. l and 2 with a knife, and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 324 IPC respectively. ( 4 ) WE are conscious of the fact that in an appeal against acquittal, jurisdiction of the appellate Court is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference has to be made with the order unless the approach made by the trial Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by it is such which could not have been possible arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judicially and is liable therefore to be characterized as perverse. It is also well settled that where two views are possible and the view taken by the Court below is plausible, appellate Court cannot legally interfere with the order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous. ( 5 ) BEARING the above principles of law in mind, we shall scrutinize the evidence on record with a great deal of circumspection. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is contradictory with regard to the actual incident, that it was not possible for a single person to stab P. Ws. 1, 2 and the deceased, and that the incident had not taken place in the manner suggested by the Prosecution. ( 7 ) P. WS. L and 2 are injured witnesses. P. W. I was examined by Dr. Padmaja. She issued Ex. 1, 2 and the deceased, and that the incident had not taken place in the manner suggested by the Prosecution. ( 7 ) P. WS. L and 2 are injured witnesses. P. W. I was examined by Dr. Padmaja. She issued Ex. P-11-wound certificate. She found an incised wound of 4" x 1" with omentum coming out fresh and bleeding on the left hypochondrium 2" below the left costal margin and an incised wound of 1" x V2" * V4" the left upper thigh. She found the first injury as grievous and the second as simple. She also examined P. W. 2 and found a lacerated wound of 1" 1" on right index finger and the injury was simple in nature. She issued Ex. P-12-wound certificate. Since she was in United Kingdom, P. W. 12 was examined to prove her handwriting and Exs. P-11 and P-12. He worked with her for five years. He proved her handwriting the signature on Exs. P-11 and P-12. His evidence and the recitals in Exs. P-11 and P-12 remain unchallenged. The accused did not dispute the fact that Dr. Padmaja examined P. W. I and 2 and issued Exs. P-11 and P-12. It is not the case of the accused that these witnesses sustained injuries at some other place and in some other manner. ( 8 ) DR. Padmaja also examined the deceased and found an incised wound of 2l/2" x 1" on the left lower chest 2" above the left costal margin. She issued Ex. P-13 wound certificate. She did not state whether this injury was simple or grievous. According to this certificate, the patient absconded without informing the hospital authority. This certificate and the handwriting and signature thereon were proved by P. W. 12. He has stated that the X-ray taken on the deceased has suggested hallow viscus injury meaning injury to intestines. He has admitted that if medical aid or treatment is not given, there is a possibility of development of gangrene. He has also stated that the date from which the accused absconded from the hospital has not been mentioned in the wound certificate. ( 9 ) P. W. 9 is a private Doctor in whose clinic the deceased took, treatment from 1-9-1994. After examining the patient, he came to the conclusion that he was suffering from sub-acute intestinal obstruction. He started conservative treatment. ( 9 ) P. W. 9 is a private Doctor in whose clinic the deceased took, treatment from 1-9-1994. After examining the patient, he came to the conclusion that he was suffering from sub-acute intestinal obstruction. He started conservative treatment. Initially he showed some development, but later his condition deteriorated. The patient again complained of abdominal pain. An X-ray was taken from which P. W. 9 noticed that there was complete intestinal obstruction. Therefore, he decided to perform an operation and did perform operation on 11-9-1994. He noticed that the intestine that received the stab injury had completely spoiled which in medical terms is known as gangrene. After operation, the condition of the patient had improved four days, but later again it deteriorated. Ultimately the patient died on 19-9-1994. He sent Ex. P-4 intimation to police. In the cross-examination this witness admitted that the deceased did not produce any case sheet or history sheet issued by the Government Hospital. He also admitted that the deceased might have died due to development of gangrene. The evidence of this witness shows that the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 1-9-1994 and he died on 19-9-1994. P. W. 8 is the Doctor who conducted post- mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found twelve sutured incised wounds on the front of abdomen and partly healed incised wound of 6 cm on the left side of upper abdomen. The cause of death according to this witness was peritonitis as a result of penetrating abdominal injury. He issued Ex. P-6-post-mortem certificate. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. From the per usal of the afore said medical evidence, it cannot be conclusively said that the deceased met with a homicidal death as a result of the stab injury. The deceased absconded from the hospital where treatment was given in the first instance. The evidence of P. W. 9 shows that the deceased might have died due to development of gangrene which might have developed due to lack of medial aid. Therefore, from the evidence on record we have no hesitation in holding that the death of the deceased was not a direct result of the stab injury. The homicidal nature of the death of the deceased has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, from the evidence on record we have no hesitation in holding that the death of the deceased was not a direct result of the stab injury. The homicidal nature of the death of the deceased has not been established beyond all reasonable doubt. ( 10 ) ALTHOUGH the injury allegedly received by the deceased was not the direct result of his death, but he died of gangrene which had developed due to lack of medical aid. Explanation 2 to Section 299 IPC says that although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented, the person who caused injury shall be deemed to have caused his death. If something between the injury and the death due to distinct set of circumstances, such as gross neglect or resorting to proper remedies, that disease does not bring natural and probable result of the injury itself, the person causing injury cannot be held responsible for culpable homicide amounting or not amounting to murder. Explanation (2) of Section 399 has to be read with the words in Section299"or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death". When so read, it is clear that when a person causes such injury as is likely to cause death, then that person is liable for culpable homicide although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. "proper remedies and skilful treatment" contemplated by this Explanation is not refusal to take treatment or not taking treatment at all. For example, for an injury sustained by an injured " proper remedy" would be to undergo surgery, but he is medically advised only to take tablets or injections, and he later dies for want of surgery, his assailant is still liable under Section 299 IPC. Similarly, "skilful treatment" referred to in this Section is the "skill" with which a Doctor treats the injured. If the Doctor does not treat the injured "skillfully" and the injured dies for want of skilful treatment, the assailant is liable under this Section. But, if the injured does not take treatment at all or absconds abruptly while taking treatment or refuses to take treatment, due to which he dies subsequently, the assailants cannot be held responsible under this Section. But, if the injured does not take treatment at all or absconds abruptly while taking treatment or refuses to take treatment, due to which he dies subsequently, the assailants cannot be held responsible under this Section. Therefore, two conditions must be satisfied for making the person liable - (i) the injury caused must be such as is likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and (ii) the injured must take treatment of the injury (and if he cannot afford the cost of treatment at private hospital, he can take treatment at a Government Hospital), and must not refuse, or be unwilling to take treatment, or abscond abruptly against medial advice and without intimation to the concerned hospital authorities, or stop taking treatment on his own. When these two conditions are satisfied, the assailant of the deceased can be held responsible under Section 299 IPC, notwithstanding that by resoring to "proper remedies and skilful treatment", as stated above, the death could have been averted. ( 11 ) IN the present case, there is evidence on record that the deceased absconded from the Government Hospital without informing the concerned authorities. He started taking treatment from P. W. 9 from 1-9-1994 who found that the deceased was suffering from sub-acute intestinal obstruction. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased took treatment from the day of his absconding till 1-9-1994. P. W. 9 stated that the deceased might have died due to lacke of medical treatment. Had the deceased taken treatment continuously, he might have survived. Therefore, it can but be said that the accused was negligent in taking continuous treatment. Despite taking continuous treatment if he had died, the accused would be guilty of the offence of murder, provided that the injury caused by him was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There is also no evidence on record to show that the injury caused by the accused is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. Therefore, if the evidence on record is found to be reliable and trustworthy as regards the attack on the deceased, the accused may be liable for voluntarily causing injury alone and not murder. ( 12 ) THE injury on the accused has been explained by P. Ws. l to 3. They are eyewitnesses to the incident. Therefore, if the evidence on record is found to be reliable and trustworthy as regards the attack on the deceased, the accused may be liable for voluntarily causing injury alone and not murder. ( 12 ) THE injury on the accused has been explained by P. Ws. l to 3. They are eyewitnesses to the incident. The incident in question took place at Luna centre. P. W. 5 is one of the mediators present at the time of observation of scene of occurrence. Except suggesting that Ex. P-3-mediators report was prepared in the police station and that he was a stock mediators, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. There is no evidence to show that he was a stock mediator for the police. P. W. 10 is the Investigation Officer who on coming to know about the "galata" taking place, went along with his staff to the scene of occurrence. He recorded the statement of P. W. I and registered a case. He drew Ex. P-3-scene of observation wherein it has been stated that the scene of occurrence is located at the junction leading to the Luna centre. Police seized bloodstained earth and control earth, knife and bamboo stick therefrom. It has not been suggested either to P. W. 5 or 10 that the scene of occurrence was not the junction as stated by them. Even the accused did not deny or dispute the place of occurrence. In his written statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. he admitted that while he was going to his house at Apollo centre, P. Ws. l, 2 and the deceased pounced upon him. The evidence on record thus establishes that the place of occurrence was the Apollo centre. ( 13 ) THE trial court doubted the veracity of P. W. 10 because he did not post any police constable to guard the scene of occurrence which circumstance created a doubt on the Prosecution case with regard to the observation of scene of occurrence. It is not the case of the accused that the police did not visit and observe the scene of occurrence. The evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 10 remained unchallenged on that aspect. The lower Court observed that there was flowing of people at the junction but the scene of occurrence remained undisturbed is unbelievable. This observation is quite absurd. It is not the case of the accused that the police did not visit and observe the scene of occurrence. The evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 10 remained unchallenged on that aspect. The lower Court observed that there was flowing of people at the junction but the scene of occurrence remained undisturbed is unbelievable. This observation is quite absurd. When an incident of this nature takes place, people tend to maintain aloofness from the scene of occurrence out of fear. Therefore, though several people were present at the scene of occurrence, they did not disturb it. Had the accused come forward with a plea that the people present at the scene of occurrence disturbed it, it would be a circumstance to be taken against him. Whether the scene of occurrence has been guarded or not it makes little difference. ( 14 ) COMING to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, their presence at the scene of occurrence has not been denied or dispute by the accused. On the other hand, he admitted that these witnesses and the deceased were present at Luna centre and pounced upon him. The only thing to be ascertained is who was the aggressor of the incident and which version of the incident is reliable, because there is no dispute about the incident. ( 15 ) P. WS. L to 3 stated that in the first stance, the accused stabbed P. W. I. He fell down and again accused stabbed him. When the deceased intervened, the accused stabbed him also. Then the accused threw the knife towards P. W. 2 which cut his hand. Then P. W. 2 beat the accused with a stick. The evidence of P. W. 2 would go to show that in the first instance accused stabbed P. W. I at two places, and when he tried to prevent the accused from making the attack, the accused stabbed him which he tried to ward off and he received injury to his hand and thereafter he beat the accused with a stick. P. W. 3 also stated that the accused in the first instance beat P. W. I. Then the deceased intervened. He also beat the deceased. When P. W. 2 tried to intervene, the accused beat him also. P. W. 3 also stated that the accused in the first instance beat P. W. I. Then the deceased intervened. He also beat the deceased. When P. W. 2 tried to intervene, the accused beat him also. P. W. 2 put his hand to ward off the blow in the process of which he sustained injuries to his hand. Then P. W. 2 removed a stick available there and beat the accused. The sequence of events that took place has been consistently deposed by P. Ws. l to 3. There is no material deviation or discrepancy in their evidence as regards the actual attack. The earliest version given by P. W. I in Ex. P-1 is also completely in corroboration with the evidence of P. W. 1. Therefore, the recitals in Ex. P-1 can be used to corroborate the evidence of P. W. I. Within 45 minutes after the incident, P. W. 10 recorded Ex. P-1. ( 16 ) THE motive for the offence is that the accused was having illicit contacts with the wife of P. W. 2. According to P. W. 2, the accused was talking with his wife and he questioned him as to why he was doing so, which led to the present incident, whereas, P. Ws. l and 3 did not state that the wife of P. W. 2 was present at that time or the accused was talking with her or when P. W. 2 questioned the accused the quarrel started. Even this motive aspect of the case has been disbelieved by the Court below. There is consistent version of P. Ws. 1 to 3 that the accused attacked P. Ws. l, 2 and the deceased. P. W. 3 is an independent witness and is closely related to the accused. According to him, he was proceeding towards Luna centre to have a cup of tea. At that time of noticed P. W. 2, the accused, Adilakshami and Lakshmi at the junction. It is at the time the incident in question took place. It has been suggested to him that he was not present at the time of incident and that there were family disputes between him and the accused. He denied the suggestion. There is no evidence adduced by the accused to show the nature of alleged dispute. Further P. W. 3 categorically stated that they did not have disputes with the accused. He denied the suggestion. There is no evidence adduced by the accused to show the nature of alleged dispute. Further P. W. 3 categorically stated that they did not have disputes with the accused. Some contradictions were elicited from the evidence of this witness. These contradictions are with regard to the arrival of the accused to the scene of occurrence, the presence of P. Ws. l, 2 and the deceased before arrival of P. W. 3 etc. , which are not material so as to doubt the veracity of P. W. 3, especially in view of his relationship with the accused. Further he has no animosity against the accused. Therefore, from the evidence of P. Ws. l to 3, it is clear that it is the accused who caused injuries to P. Ws. 1, 2 and the deceased. ( 17 ) IT has been explained by the accused that P. Ws. l, 2 and the deceased sustained injuries when he warded off the blows given by P. W. 2 and in that scuffle they sustained injuries. This explanation is quite improbable. One can understand if one of those witnesses sustained injuries in such manner, but not all the persons. Therefore, no credence can be given to the explanation of the accused. ( 18 ) THE learned Sessions Judge observed that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is not consistent with regard to the arrival of persons who came to the scene of occurrence. These contradictions or omissions are found even in the case of wholly truthful witnesses. The question is whether these contradictions go to the root of the case or not. Whether Laxmi and Adilakshami were already present at the scene of occurrence or whether P. W. I and the deceased came and joined P. W. 2, or whether some events preceding me actual attack took place or not, are inconsequential. Therefore, after going through the evidence on record we have no hesitation in holding that there is no material discrepancy in the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the attack on P. Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased. ( 19 ) THE trail Court also observed that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses and the remand report and case diary. 1 and 2 and the deceased. ( 19 ) THE trail Court also observed that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses and the remand report and case diary. Case diary and remand report can only be used to contradict the witnesses and cannot be used as evidence and compare them with the evidence given by the witnesses which is the only substantive evidence. Even otherwise, the discrepancies as regards the mode of reaching the hospital etc. , are immaterial, inasmuch as the actual assault is not in dispute. The trial Court went to the extent of comparing the averments in the charge sheet with the evidence of the witnesses, which is impermissible under law. ( 20 ) FROM the evidence on record we have no hesitation in holding that the Prosecution has established that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the deceased with a dangerous weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. ( 21 ) ACCORDING to the Prosecution the incident in question took place when the accused and -P. W. 2 were quarreling. Therefore, if the accused got any grudge against any of the Prosecution witnesses, it should be against P. W. 2 alone. The accused had no intention to kill P. W. I. On of the injuries sustained by P. W. I is grievous in nature, and therefore the accused is liable under Section 326 IPC. He also caused simple injury to P. W. 2 with a dangerous weapon and therefore is liable under Section 324 IPC. ( 22 ) IN the result, we set aside the impugned order of acquittal. We convict the accused under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to the deceased, 326 IPC for causing grievous injury to P. W. I, and 324 IPC for causing injury to P. W. 2; We sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to P. W. 1 and the deceased and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sec. 326 IPC for causing grievous injury to P. W. 2. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The accused-respondent is directed to surrender himself forthwith to serve the sentence. The appeal is accordingly allowed.