JUDGMENT - BRAHME P.S., J.: - This criminal appeal is against order and judgment passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 9/1984 on 11-6-1992 acquitting the respondents of the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. 2. The incident which gave rise to this prosecution against respondents took place on 21-8-1983 at about 10.00 a.m. at village Khairi and the victim of assault was Janardhan Shamrao Wagh (P.W. 2). The victim was residing with his mother - Deokabai (P.W. 8), wife-Vimalbai (P.W. 9) and daughter Vakila (P.W. 13) at village Khairi. Respondent Gangadhar original accused No. 1 and Arun (original accused No. 3) are sons of respondent Angadrao (original accused No. 2). Respondent Pandurang (original accused No. 4) and Madhukar (original Accused No. 5) are real brothers, while respondent - Sheshrao (original accused No. 6) and Ramesh (original accused No. 7) are sons of respondent - Pandurang. Witness Shankarrao (P.W. 1) who in fact lodged the report - Exhibit 44 in respect of the incident that took place on that date in which victim Janardhan was assaulted is uncle of victim. His son Deepak went to his shop at about 10.00 a.m. and informed him that there was quarrel between Janardhan and accused Angadrao and Pandurang. Shankarrao went to village Khairi and saw his nephew Janardhan injured. Mother and sister of Janardhan removed him to Primary Health Center, Anji. Then Police Patil of village Anji and Shankarrao went to Kharangana Police Station and there report was lodged. 3. The actual incident that took place was described by victim Janardhan in his evidence before the Court. According to him he had been to the house of his uncle Krishnarao and as the later was not at home he was returning to his house, but on his way to his house, when he reached near the house of accused - Pandurang, he saw accused Pandurang abusing one Sahebrao (P.W. 10). It appears that the victim-Janardhan advised Sahebrao to give report against accused who was abusing him. That time accused Angadrao, Gangadhar, Arun, Madhukar, Sheshrao and Ramesh reached to the spot where Janardhan was and started assaulting him. It is the case of the prosecution that accused - Gangadhar was holding knife while rest of the accused persons were armed with the sticks and they assaulted Janardhan. That time accused Angadrao, Gangadhar, Arun, Madhukar, Sheshrao and Ramesh reached to the spot where Janardhan was and started assaulting him. It is the case of the prosecution that accused - Gangadhar was holding knife while rest of the accused persons were armed with the sticks and they assaulted Janardhan. As a result of assault by Gangadhar with knife Janardhan sustained stab wounds on his person and simultaneously other accused persons were beating Janaradhan with sticks. It is alleged that at that time all the accused were saying to kill Janaradhan. At that time Damodhar Dahake, Sahebrao Khirale and Devchand Kamble were passing by. At that time Vakila sister of Janardhan (P.W. 13) while going by that side saw the incident in which Janardhan was being assaulted. She immediately rushed to informed her mother Deokabai (P.W. 8) about the incident of assault on Janardhan and then they reached to spot. In fact according to the witness - Devkabai when she reached there, actually fell on the body of Janardhan to save him from beating by accused. After Janardhan was brought to hospital, his statement was recorded. The victim Janardhan was examined by Dr. Yerawar (P.W. 3). He issued certificate-Exhibit 48 in respect of injuries noticed on his person. As can be seen from the certificate Exhibit 48, there were in all four stab wounds suffered by the victim Janardhan, he was admitted at Sevagram Hospital. His statement was also recorded after he was certified by the doctor that he was in a fit state of health to make a statement. In respect of the report lodged by witness Shankarrao an entry was made in station diary that accused Angadrao and his sons as well as Pandurang and his sons assaulted Janardhan. It was on the basis of the report Exhibit 44 lodged by witness - Shankarrao and the report Exhibit 46 lodged by the victim Janardhan in the form of his statement recorded, the first information report Exhibit 88 was drawn. An offence was registered vide C.R. No. 84/83 against accused person. P.S.I. Vasant Jagnattahrao who was then attached to Kharangana Police Station carried out investigation. The accused were arrested and the blood stained clothes of accused No. 1 Gangadhar came to be seized by making necessary panchanama. An offence was registered vide C.R. No. 84/83 against accused person. P.S.I. Vasant Jagnattahrao who was then attached to Kharangana Police Station carried out investigation. The accused were arrested and the blood stained clothes of accused No. 1 Gangadhar came to be seized by making necessary panchanama. He also seized under panchanama - Exhibit 54 three sticks from the house of accused No. 4 Pandurang, he attached from accused Madhukar on stick under panchanama Exhibit 55. On 23-8-1983 accused No. 1 Gangdhar while in custody made a statement that accused No. 3 has kept a knife in his field, as per the memorandum Exhibit 75. Accused No. 3 Arun also disclosed the fact that he had kept the knife in the field as per the memorandum Exhibit 77. Then accused No. 3 Arun in pursuance of the statement made by him took out knife (Article No. 9) which came to be seized. Articles seized were sent to Chemical Analyser, Nagpur for analysis vide requisition - Exhibit 42. After receipt of reports from Chemical Analyser vide - Exhibits 89, 90 and 93 and completing the investigation the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Arvi who later on committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, to the charge framed vide - Exhibit 17 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of accused was that of total denial. It was stated by the accused persons that the victim Janardhan has filed a false case. They have not assaulted him. Accused No. 1 Gangadhar in his defence stated that there was enmity between Janardhan and accused persons. That accused persons have filed many cases against Janardhan and there was also externment proceedings against him, in which the accused persons were witnesses. Accused No. 1 Gangadhar has taken a specific plea that on the day of incident he was proceeding and complainant came towards him to assault him with knife and there was scuffle between them and that the knife was snatched by him, when Janardhan was intending to assault him. Hence for his defence he assaulted on the back of Janardhan. He also stated that he lodged a report against Janardhan about the incident in the Police Station, he was examined by Medical Officer for the injury he had sustained. Hence for his defence he assaulted on the back of Janardhan. He also stated that he lodged a report against Janardhan about the incident in the Police Station, he was examined by Medical Officer for the injury he had sustained. In fact accused Gangadhar when his statement under section 313 was recorded he filed written statement-Exhibit 97 in which he has narrated the incident that has taken place in which he came to be assaulted by Janardhan. He also produced the copy of the station diary entry Exhibit 97/1 regarding the report lodged by him at the Police Station in respect of assault on him by Janardhan. There is copy of station diary Entry No. 59 dated 21-8-1983 vide Exhibit 97/2 about showing that offence was registered against the victim Janardhan on the complaint by accused No. 1 for offence under section 324. Defence also sought to produce the medical report in respect of injury suffered by accused-Gangadhar. However, prosecution withheld that report. It was specifically alleged and contended by accused - Gangadhar that he was assaulted by victim Janardhan with knife. At the trial the prosecution examined in all 18 witnesses including victim Janardhan (P.W. 2), complainant - Shankarrao (P.W. 1), Deokabai (P.W. 8), Sahebrao (P.W. 10), Vimlabai (P.W. 9), Vakilabai (P.W. 13), Doctor and P.S.I. Vasant Hingnikar (P.W. 18). The trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution as also the defence found that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the prosecution case as to assault on the victim Janardhan by accused persons. The trial Court accepted the defence version, more particularly that of accused No. 1 being well corroborated by documentary evidence consisting of report lodged by him in the Police Station on the basis of which offence was registered against witness - Janardhan after taking necessary entry in the station diary. The trial Court found that the evidence of prosecution witness who claimed to have witnessed the incident was inter se discrepent and that there was no corroboration to it by independent evidence. Therefore, the trial Court in keeping with his conclusions and finding acquitted the accused persons. Hence this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Patel, the learned A.P.P. for appellant-State. I have also heard Mr. Brahme the learned Counsel for respondent. Therefore, the trial Court in keeping with his conclusions and finding acquitted the accused persons. Hence this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Patel, the learned A.P.P. for appellant-State. I have also heard Mr. Brahme the learned Counsel for respondent. We have gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned A.P.P. Learned A.P.P. gave much emphasis on the version of evidence of witness Janardhan describing the incident that has taken place in which he sustained stab wounds as noticed by Medical Officer, submitted that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the evidence of witnesses including the victim. He therefore, urged that the Court will be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal. 6. As against that the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently stated that there is no perversity in the judgment. The trial Court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective. The evidence on record does not substantiate the case of assault by the accused persons on the victim. The evidence is inter se contradictory even as regards to the time of occurrence of the incident. He therefore, urged that there is no justification for interference by the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 7. At the outset it has to be stated that the factum of injuries sustained by victim Janardhan as noted by the Medical Officer in the certificate-Exhibit 48 is not disputed. We have made reference to this factum of injuries to point out that the claim of the witnesses in their evidence that the victim came to be assaulted with sticks by all the accused is totally falsified. Witnesses Deokabai, Sahebrao, Vimlabai and Vakila claimed that victim was assaulted with sticks by accused persons. As stated earlier the Medical Officer who examined the victim Janardhan noted four incised wounds on the person of the victim. If really as contended by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence the victim was assaulted by all the accused persons with the sticks in all probabilities there would have been injuries in the nature of contusion or lacerated wounds, besides the stab wounds noted by the Medical Officer. If really as contended by the prosecution witnesses in their evidence the victim was assaulted by all the accused persons with the sticks in all probabilities there would have been injuries in the nature of contusion or lacerated wounds, besides the stab wounds noted by the Medical Officer. It is also significant to note that in the report Exhibit 46 which the victim Janardhan lodged, he has specifically stated that accused-Gangadhar was holding knife in his hand while other persons were holding sticks in their hands and that Gangadhar delivered 4-5 blows of knife on his back, while the other persons dealt stick blows on him. He further stated that he sustained sticks blows on his back, legs and thighs. Therefore, there is no hesitation in saying that this statement in the report as also the version of witnesses in their evidence that there was assault by accused persons with sticks as a result of that Janardhan sustained injuries besides stab wounds is totally false. In our view this itself is sufficient to discard the prosecution case as also evidence of witnesses supporting the prosecution case. 8. So far as witness-Shankarrao (P.W. 1) is concerned, though he lodged the report in the Police Station vide Exhibit 44, it is revealed from his evidence as also the report Exhibit 44 that he was informed by his son Deepak about the incident. Even witness Shankarrao did not claim to be an eye-witness to the incident. It is very unfortunate that the prosecution did not examine his son Deepak as a witness who according to this witness Shankarrao informed him about the incident of assault on the victim. Therefore, evidence of this witness Shankarrao is of no consequence and of no assistance to the prosecution. 9. The witness Janardhan in his evidence stated about the assault on him about which we have already stated while narrating the prosecution case. His evidence is totally shattered in the cross-examination. As stated earlier his claim that he was assaulted by other accused persons with sticks is falsified. In his evidence he has made reference to presence of witness Sahebrao (P.W. 10). In fact as per the prosecution case in the incident of assault on witness-Janardhan it was witness Sahebrao was instrumental. This was in the sense initially accused abused Sahebrao at the time when victim Janardhan was passing by that side. In his evidence he has made reference to presence of witness Sahebrao (P.W. 10). In fact as per the prosecution case in the incident of assault on witness-Janardhan it was witness Sahebrao was instrumental. This was in the sense initially accused abused Sahebrao at the time when victim Janardhan was passing by that side. It is claimed by the prosecution that witness Janardhan advised Sahebrao to lodge report against accused persons. Therefore, the accused persons took to assault the victim Janardhan. The witness Sahebrao in his evidence claimed that he witnessed the incident of assault. He has stated so in his examination-in-chief saying that accused No. 1 Gangadhar was holding knife and other 2-3 persons were holding sticks and they started beating Janardhan. He further stated that he went running and then accused No. 7 who was holding stick chased behind him. In his cross-examination, however, he candidly admitted that he has not seen stabbing to Janardhan by accused No. 1 Janardhan. Admittedly this witness Sahebrao himself did not lodge any report against accused persons who abused him on that day. That apart in his evidence he has stated that incident has taken place at about 12.00 to 12.30 noon when he was returning to his house from the field. In that regard he was confronted with his statement recorded by the police and he stated that it did not happen that the incident has taken place at about 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. as per portion marked 'A' recorded by the police. He stated that he did not remember whether he had stated to police that at about 11.30 noon, he was proceeding and when he reached near the house of accused Pandurang, he started abusing him. Therefore, if his evidence is accepted, there is glaring disparity as to the time of occurrence. Therefore, on close scrutiny of his evidence it is certainly felt that what is claimed to be eye-witness to the incident is not truthful. That is much more so that when he has given candid admission than he did not see actual stabbing to Janardhan by accused No. 1 Janardhan by accused No. 1 Gangadhar, in our opinion this admission given by this witness gives a death nail to the prosecution case against the accused persons. 10. We have considered the evidence of witness Deokabai, Vimalabai and Vakilabai. 10. We have considered the evidence of witness Deokabai, Vimalabai and Vakilabai. Witness Vimalabai in her evidence has stated that Vakila came running and informed that Gangadhar stabbed her husband with knife on his back and four Bhoies were beating him with stick. She therefore, accompanied by her mother-in-law i.e. Deokabai (P.W. 8) and when reached to the place of occurrence saw that the accused were beating Janardhan with sticks. She claimed that the incident has taken place at about 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. In her cross-examination she admitted that fir her mother in law went towards the spot and afterwards she followed her. She maintained that she stated before the police that Vakila stated before him that accused No. 1 stabbed with knife on the back of her husband and others were beating with sticks. However, she admitted that it is omitted from her statement and she could not assign any reason as to why it was omitted from her statement. She maintained however, that accused persons were assaulting her husband with sticks. She further went on saying that they were beating her husband for about 12 minutes. As pointed out in earlier part of judgment beating the victim by all accused with sticks is totally false. Therefore, evidence of this witness is contrary to the medical evidence on record as the claim made by this witness about assault on the victim with sticks by all accused persons does not probablize when not a single injury is on the person of the victim Janardhan which could have been caused in case sticks blow would have been given. 11. Witness-Deokabai claimed in her statement that she was informed by her daughter Vakila about the assault on Janardhan. In his evidence she stated her daughter informed her that about 2-3 persons caught hold Janardhan and that Gangadhar stabbed him with knife on his back and that she told that she did not see who were others because she was very much frightened. In her evidence she further stated that when immediately she went to the spot and had fallen on the person of Janardhan for saving him and then she made to stand her son Janardhan, that accused No. 4 raised sticks for assaulting her, but he did not assault her with the stick, accused then ran away. In her evidence she further stated that when immediately she went to the spot and had fallen on the person of Janardhan for saving him and then she made to stand her son Janardhan, that accused No. 4 raised sticks for assaulting her, but he did not assault her with the stick, accused then ran away. If her evidence is scrutinised closely it is revealed that she did not actually witnessed the incident of assault on her son. In fact as stated by her when she reached to the spot, she saw her son having fallen down and she actually fell on her body to save him. Therefore, if we visualise the picture before our eyes it is crystal clear that beating if at all it would have been to victim Janardhan was over, when this witness reached to the spot. That apart the cross-examination of this witness reveals that she has made material omissions. There is nothing in her evidence about the arrival of Vimalabai wife of Janardhan on the spot. Therefore, in our considered opinion her claim to be an eye-witness to the extent does not stand to the reasons and probable. 12. This takes us to consider the evidence of witnesses Vakila (P.W. 13). She stated that when she went towards the slum area of Khairi village to find lady workers for working in the field as asked by her mother, she had seen quarrel near the house of Pandurang accused No. 4 and that accused Pandurang, Madhukar, Sheshrao and Ramesh were beating with sticks to her brother Janardhan and accused Angad had held her brother Janardhan by his hair and Gangadhar stabbed him on his back with knife and accused Arun was instigating others saying to beat Janardhan. She immediately rushed to her house and informed her mother, she further claimed that when she returned along with her mother and sister in law to the place of occurrence, she saw the accused were beating Janardhan with sticks and again accused Gangadhar stabbed him with knife and his mother was requesting Gangadhar not to stab and then her mother fell on the body of Janardhan to save him. Her evidence has been shattered in cross-examination by defence. Her evidence has been shattered in cross-examination by defence. In the first place her claim that the accused persons were assaulting in her presence her brother with sticks is falsified for the reasons stated in earlier part of the judgment. Further her claim that when she was present accused Gangadhar dealt a stab blow with knife on the back of Janardhan is not corroborated by the version of witness Vimalabai and Deokabai. It has come in her evidence and also it is a case of prosecution that incident was witnessed by many person who had collected there. But unfortunately no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the claim that the accused persons assaulted the victim. The claim so far as the assault by other accused persons excepting accused Gangadhar to victim Janardhan with sticks is concerned, it is falsified. The witness Vakilabai, her cross-examination shows that she has made improvements on material particulars which makes her claim doubtful. 13. This is the state of evidence of prosecution witness, so far as the prosecution case of assault is concerned. The evidence of the witnesses is appreciated independently by us, reveals that evidence is totally insufficient to establish that in fact there was assault by accused persons on victim as claimed by the prosecution. The trial Court has rightly rejected and discarded the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 14. In addition to that we may refer to the specific contention raised by accused No. 1 Gangadhar in support of his defence. His statement is corroborated by the report which he lodged in the Police Station about assault on him by the victim-Janardhan. There is specific entry in the station diary in that regard. In addition to that there is record that accused Gangadhar was as stated by him in the report was examined by doctor for the injuries he suffered. It is pertinent to note that he alleged and contended that he suffered the injury as a result of assault on him by the victim Janardhan at the time and place of the occurrence. It is a matter of record that in respect of the assault on accused Gangdhar by victim Janardhan offence has been registered against the victim Janardhan. It was contended on behalf of the accused persons at the trial that the medical report of the injuries sustained by the accused Gangadhar should be produced. It is a matter of record that in respect of the assault on accused Gangdhar by victim Janardhan offence has been registered against the victim Janardhan. It was contended on behalf of the accused persons at the trial that the medical report of the injuries sustained by the accused Gangadhar should be produced. But the prosecution has not made available in that report. In other words the prosecution has withheld medical report in respect of injury suffered by accused Gangadhar. In our opinion withholding the injury report by prosecution is itself inherent infirmity in the prosecution case. It was specifically contended by the accused Gangadhar that in exercise of private defence, he assaulted the victim Janardhan with knife. In support of that he contended that initially it was Janardhan who rushed to assault him and he was armed with knife. He suffered injury at the hands of Janardhan. He therefore constrained to snatch the knife and used it to assault Janardhan in exercise of right of private defence. In these circumstances and on the basis of evidence on record we feel that the defence plea of accused Gangadhar seems to be probable and that probablises the contention raised by him. It was therefore for the prosecution to explain the injury suffered by the accused Gangadhar and that is more so when it stands probablized that accused Gangadhar has sustained injuries at the time of occurrence. In the absence of that an inherent infirmity in the prosecution case has been created, which makes claim of prosecution false. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly recorded a finding of acquittal of the accused persons. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned A.P.P. that the trial Court has committed error in discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recording order of acquittal of the respondents. We do not find any perversity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 15. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned A.P.P. that the trial Court has committed error in discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recording order of acquittal of the respondents. We do not find any perversity in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 15. We may refer to the decision reported in 2003 Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 1233, (State of Maharashtra v. Haribhau Krishnaji Deshmukh and others)1, the Division Bench of our High Court held that: "Power of interfering with the order of acquittal is equal to that of interfering with the order of conviction and it can be one for substantial and compelling reasons or it may be said that sufficient and cogent reasons or for strong reasons, unless appeal has strong reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal it need not be done. Where two views are possible on appreciation of evidence and the Court ordering acquittal, has taken one view, it is reasonably possible and the Appellate Court enquiring into the correctness of the acquittal on re-appreciation takes another view, but according to the criminal jurisprudence, benefit must go to the accused and the High Court should refrain from interfering with such acquittal." Even the Apex Court in 2003 All.M.R.(Cri.) 2080, (State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram)2, has observed thus: "Generally, order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing top guilt of accused and other to innocence, the view which is beneficial to the accused is to be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is not less than from the conviction of an innocent. In case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. In case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by the Appellate Court, considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference." Therefore, there is no justification for interference by this Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. We do not find any merit and substance in the appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence the order. ORDER 16. The appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal passed by the Court below is maintained. Mr. Brahme, learned Counsel was appointed for the respondent from the legal aid panel, his legal remuneration is quantified at Rs. 2000/- be paid in accordance with rules. Appeal dismissed. -----