JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 27.5.1987 passed by Sessions Judge, Dungarpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court), whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted for the offences under sections 452, 307 and 324/34 I.RC. Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts, which are relevant and necessary for decision of this appeal are that FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by PW. 1 Fatah Singh on 15.10.1986 with Police Station, Dungarpur. Police investigated the matter and filed challan against the accused-respondents for the offences as noticed above. The accused-respondents were committed to the Court of Sessions and were put to trial. 3. Prosecution examined PW. 1 Fatah Singh, PW. 2 Anop Singh, PW. 3 Raghunath Singh, PW. 4 Shiv Singh, PW. 5 Dr. Hanuman Singh, PW. 6 Dhul Singh, PW. 7 Nathu Singh and PW. 8 Hamidullah Khan and produced Ex.P/1 FIR recorded on the statement made by the complainant, Ex.P/2 Chak FIR, Ex.P/3 site inspection note, Ex.P/4 site inspection map, Ex.P/5 injury report etc. Statements of accused-respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.RC. 4. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the accused-respondents and accordingly, the trial court acquitted the accused- respondents for the charges levelled against them. 5. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the judgment impugned as well as the record of the trial court. 6. PW. 1 Fatah Singh admitted in his statement before the trial court that the courtyard in which he was sleeping is common between him and the accused-respondent Kesar Bai. He alleged that accused-respondent Kesar Bai pressed him but no injury has been assigned to her. He has stated that the accused-respondent Girdhari Singh inflicted Dharia (a sharp edged weapon) blow on his skull. Ex.P/5 is the injury report which shows no injury on skull by sharp edged weapon, but shows an injury by a blunt weapon, which according to PW 5 Dr. Hanuman Singh could not be caused by big lathi Article 2. PW. 1 further stated that accused respondent Gamer Singh inflicted lathi blow on his skull. PW. 2 Anop Singh stated that after having sustained injuries, PW. 1 Fatah Singh was unable to even stand up himself. PW. 5 Dr. Hanuman Singh could not be caused by big lathi Article 2. PW. 1 further stated that accused respondent Gamer Singh inflicted lathi blow on his skull. PW. 2 Anop Singh stated that after having sustained injuries, PW. 1 Fatah Singh was unable to even stand up himself. PW. 5 Dr. Hanuman Singh admitted that injuries No. 1 to 4 cannot be caused by big lathi Article 2. He further stated that injuries No. 1 to 4 can be self inflicted. He also stated that injuries No. 5 and 6 may or may not be caused by "Dharia". PW. 5 Dr. Hanuman Singh further stated that injuries No. 5 and 6 can be self inflicted. RW. 1 Fatah Singh admitted in his statement that he was prosecuted for the offence of rape alleged to have been committed by him with accused-respondent Kesar Bai. He has also admitted that he is facing trial of a case on the allegation that he assaulted accused-respondent No. 2 Gamer Singh by causing grievous injury, by which one hand of Gamer Singh was fractured. So far as the alleged eye-witnesses PW. 2 Anop Singh, PW. 3 Raghunath Singh and PW. 4 Shiv Singh are concerned, complainant PW. 1 Fatah Singh himself stated that they were sitting far away from the place where he was lying on the cot and, therefore, he stated that it is wrong to say that these three eye-witnesses could see him. The place of occurrence as shown by the prosecution is the place where PW. 1 Fatah Singh was lying on the cot. Thus, according to PW. 1 complainant himself, it is clear that these alleged eye-witnesses could not have seen the occurrence as they were sitting for away from the lace of occurrence. The alleged injuries are superficial and simple in nature yet PW. 2 Anop Singh could say that PW. 1 Fatah Singh was assaulted to that extent that he was unable to stand up. It is strange that with such a superficial injury, the prosecution witnesses could say that the complainant was unable to stand up. The trial Court observed that if this would have been the situation, then the complainant would not have been in a position to cover a distance of 9 km. and lodge the report. The prosecution further set up the case that after PW. The trial Court observed that if this would have been the situation, then the complainant would not have been in a position to cover a distance of 9 km. and lodge the report. The prosecution further set up the case that after PW. 1 Fatah Singh have been assaulted, all the three accused-respondents were put in a room and were locked until police came and thereafter, they were taken away by police. Neither PW. 1 says so nor other eye-witnesses, so much so PW. 8 Hamidullah Khan, Investigating Officer also does not say so. From the admitted facts, it is established that the complainant PW. 1 Fatah Singh is facing criminal trials of having committed rape with Kesar Bai and caused grievous injury to Gamer Singh and, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that the present case was lodged by him as a counter blast to the prosecution for the offences which PW. 1 is facing or to pressurise the accused-respondents in the counter case. More so, there are material contradictions in the statements of the complainant PW. 1 and the alleged eye-witnesses. The complainant himself admitted that the eye-witnesses could not have seen him where he was lying on the cot. Under the circumstances, the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses cannot be said to be reliable. The prosecution witnesses have narrated the occurrence, which is far from truth. The injuries as noticed above, are superficial and are simple in nature and according to PW. 5 Dr. Hanuman Singh, the injuries could not have been caused by the weapon article 2 "Lathi and Dharia" but could have been self inflicted. A perusal of injury report Ex.P/5 shows that it has been prepared in two parts differing in serial numbers of injuries. This further makes the prosecution case more suspicious. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish the case against the accused-respondents beyond any manner of doubt, which in my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove against the accused-respondents. Learned trial court on proper appreciation of evidence by elaborate judgment has rightly reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be erroneous. Thus, I find no error in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Learned trial court on proper appreciation of evidence by elaborate judgment has rightly reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be erroneous. Thus, I find no error in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Having considered the entire material, I am of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. The accused-respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******