JUDGMENT K.S. Garewal, J. - State of Haryana has filed this appeal against the acquittal of Munshi Ram by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad for an offence under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code vide judgment pronounced on October 31, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Nirmal Singh (PW 7) son of Sohan Singh (PW 6) was running a juice shop on Gurdwara Road, N.I.T. Faridabad at a small distance from Munshi Rams meat shop. It seems Munshi Ram had been getting juice from Nirmal Singh on credit and on May 17, 1992 at about 10.30 p.m. Nirmal Singh had gone to Munshi Rams shop to recover the money due to him. At that time Munshi Ram was present at his shop along with Raja Ram and Avtar Singh. Nirmal Singh demanded money, whereupon Munshi Ram told him that Nirmal Singh would not be allowed to leave and asked his companions to catch hold of him. On hearing the commotion Sohan Singh (PW 6) and Mahal Singh also arrived at the spot. Raja Ram and Avtar Singh caught hold of Nirmal, Munshi Ram picked up a knife and stabbed Nirmal Singh on the abdomen. Nirmal Singh fell down and become unconscious. Sohan Singh and Mahal Singh raised alarm whereupon Munshi Ram ran away from the spot. 3. Nirmal Singh was evacuated to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad where he was medico-legally examined by Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW 3) who found a stab wound on the left side of the abdomen measuring 2.5 cm x 1/2 cm about 5 cm below emblicus. Omentum was coming out of the wound. 4. The Medical Officer sent information about Nirmal Singhs admission to the Police Station and H.C. Kartar Singh (PW 9) reached the hospital to record Nirmal Singhs statement but the Medical Officer declared him unfit to make the statement. H.C. Kartar Singh again visited the hospital on the following day but Nirmal Singh was still unfit, therefore, statement of Sohan Singh (PW 6) was recorded and on its basis case was registered at Police Station, N.I.T. Faridabad on May 18 at 1.25 P.M. under Section 324/34 Indian Penal Code Munshi Ram was arrested on May 19, 1992. The remaining accused were arrested on September 8, 1992 after they had been admitted to anticipatory bail. The remaining accused were arrested on September 8, 1992 after they had been admitted to anticipatory bail. On June 22, 1992 the Medical Officer opined that injury to Nirmal Singh was dangerous to life, consequently offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code was also added. After completion of investigation, Munshi Ram and two others were sent up for trial. Charges were framed against them under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5-6. The prosecution examined Dr. A.K. Gupta (PW 1), A.S.I. Rishi Pal (PW 2), Dr. Amar Bajaj (PW 3), A.S.I. Ram Kishan (PW 4), Draftsman Sohan Lal (PW 5), Sohan Singh (PW 6), Nirmal Singh (PW 7), Dr. Avinash Sharma (PW 8) and H.C. Kartar Singh (PW 9). Thereafter, the accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code and the various items of prosecution evidence were put to them. They pleaded innocence and false implication. Munshi Ram stated as under :- "I have been running a Kaccha meat shop and close my shop at about 6 P.M. On that day also, I closed the shop at 6 P.M. as usual and went to my residence which is 4 kms away. Accused Raja Ram or Avtar Singh never worked (for) me as my servants. I have been falsely implicated in this case due to party faction. No such occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, took place at my shop." 7. They were called upon to enter defence but they did not lead any evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by it. The evidence was discrepant about who out of the accused was Munshi Rams servant and who was the contractor. There was also a contradiction regarding who had stabbed Nirmal Singh. All the accused were consequently acquitted. 8. On filing appeal against acquittal, this Court granted leave to appeal qua Munshi Ram only. Leave qua Avtar Singh and Raja Ram was declined. 9. Nirmal Singh (PW 7) is the main witness in the case. According to him he had been caught hold of by Raja Ram and Avtar Singh and Munshi Ram had stabbed him. 8. On filing appeal against acquittal, this Court granted leave to appeal qua Munshi Ram only. Leave qua Avtar Singh and Raja Ram was declined. 9. Nirmal Singh (PW 7) is the main witness in the case. According to him he had been caught hold of by Raja Ram and Avtar Singh and Munshi Ram had stabbed him. However, in cross-examination Nirmal Singh was confronted with his police statement when he testified that Munshi Ram had caused hurt to him with a chhuri. In the police statement Nirmal Singh had not stated so. Furthermore, Nirmal Singh also denied the suggestion that Munshi Ram had not attacked him with the chhuri and that Munshi Ram had only given him slap and fist blows. He was again confronted with his police statement where he had recorded that Munshi Ram had slapped him. In his police statement Nirmal Singh had stated that Raja Ram had stabbed him with a knife. 10. From the above, it appears obvious that there was serious contradiction between what Nirmal Singh stated and what the prosecution case was on the basis of Sohan Singhs statement. The contradictions were material since they touched upon the identity of the person who had stabbed Nirmal Singh. According to Sohan Singh it was Munshi Ram but according to Nirmal Singh himself it was not Munshi Ram. It was Raja Ram who had stabbed him. 11. In view of the above, it held that the trial Court was justified in acquitted all the three accused. The judgment of acquittal is neither unreasonable nor perverse and calls for no interference. Appeal against acquittal is consequently dismissed. Appeal dismissed.