UMA NATH SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal filed by the State arises out of a judgment dated 13/11/1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sajapur in Sessions Trial No. 336/91 acquitting accused Sanjay, Sitaram and Rajesh of charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State preferred this appeal with application for leave to appeal, which was granted only in respect of accused respondent Sitaram. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated the facts of the prosecution case giving rise to this criminal appeal are that on 6. 7. 1991 at about 11 Oclock in the day time deceased Balvir Singh was at home. Adjoining his house was situated a building known as Sanjay Lodge which belonged to accused. The said building was under construction on the date of incident. At about 10 Oclock on the date of incident some bricks fell on the house of the deceased from the second storey of the adjoining house. The deceased objected to that and cautioned the accused against such negligence. Being infuriated all the three accused, namely, Sanjay, Sitaram and Rajesh came out. At that time, Jasubai (PW 1), wife of the deceased was cooking food inside the house and the deceased was standing nearby Hearing the shouts of the deceased, PW 1 cannot out and wit-nessed that the accused were grappling with the deceased. Accused respondent Sitaram caused a stab wound on the side neck of the deceased and the rest of the accused kept on grappling with him. Jasubai (PW 1) called her sons and carried the deceased to Hospital. Doctor vide Exhibit P-4 informed the police that the deceased was admitted in the hospital in injured condition, whereupon vide Exhibit P-8 police station incharge Satnam Singh recorded an offence under Section 307. The police made endeavour to record dying declaration of the decea-sed, but he was not in a fit condition to give the statement. The deceased was shifted to Bhopal for further treatment and after having undergone necessary treatment he was discharged. Again on 19. 7. 1991, his health deteriorated and therefore he was again lodged in the hospital. On 19. 7. 1991 itself at 1 Oclock he died. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. V. P. Dubey (PW 6 ). In his opinion the cause of death was shock and duration of death was within, three to twelve hours of the post-mortem. Again on 19. 7. 1991, his health deteriorated and therefore he was again lodged in the hospital. On 19. 7. 1991 itself at 1 Oclock he died. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. V. P. Dubey (PW 6 ). In his opinion the cause of death was shock and duration of death was within, three to twelve hours of the post-mortem. He noticed a fresh healed scar of stitching of the size 1 and 1/2 inches long transversely situated on upper-most right side region of the neck. He also found another stitched mark of 2 Inches length being longitudinally situa-ted above supra-sternal tracheotomy site. The FIR (Exhibit P-8 WAS lodged at 19 hours on 6. 7. 1991, wherein the time of mci-dent was mentioned to be of 11 Oclock in the day time. The FIR was recorded on the basis of information received from the doctor. In the FIR, it was mentioned that the deceased had been brought to hospital in injured condition with incised wound on the right side of his neck and his condition having been serious he was shifted to Bhopal for further treatment. On the same date i. e. on 6. 7. 1991, the Sujalpur police had asked for medical report which was given vide Exhibit P-3 by Dr. Shivnarayan Gupta (PW 5 ). He found an incised wound of 2-1/2 x 1- 1/2 inches depth (not probed ). He also found a cut on the right trachea, which had been caused by a sharp-cutting object. He found the nature of injury being grievous. On the memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by accused respondent Sitaram, the knife by which the injury was caused on the neck of the deceased was seized vide Exhibit P-2. Vide Exhibit P-9 on 7. 7. 1991, the blood stained clothes of the deceased were also seized. Vide Exhibit P-b, 1. 0. Satnam Singh (PW 7) seized the blood stained and controlled earth from the spot of incident. On 12. 7. 1991 accused Rajesh, s/o Sitaram was arrested vide Exhibit P-li. Vide Exhibit P-12, accused Sanjay and Sitaram were arrested. In the inquest report (Exhibit P-14) the cause of death of the deceased was found to be stab wound on his neck. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Jasubai (PW 1) is the wife of the deceased. Vide Exhibit P-12, accused Sanjay and Sitaram were arrested. In the inquest report (Exhibit P-14) the cause of death of the deceased was found to be stab wound on his neck. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Jasubai (PW 1) is the wife of the deceased. Chandra-shekar Thakur (PW 2) is the son of the deceased. Harish Chandra (PW 3) is another son of the deceased. Rajendra Singh Raju (PW 4) is a witness of seizure, but was declared hostile. Dr. Shivnarayan Gupta, (PW 5) is the Asstt. Surgeon, who had initially medically examined the deceased. Dr. V. P. Dubey (PW 6) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. Satnam Singh (PW 7) is the investigating officer, who received information from the Hospital (Exhibit P-4) and registered a crime under Section 307, IPC. He also proved (Exhibit P-9) the seizure Panchnama of the clothes of the deceased and the seizure Panchnama of the articles of the spot of incident (Exhibit P-b ). B. L. Soni (PW 8), Police Station incharge of Sujalpur had arrested the accused persons vide Exhibits P-li and P-l2 and conducted the inquest. The accused respondent in his 313 statement pleaded false implication on account of enmity. The Trial Court found that the statement of Jasubai (PW 1) wife of the deceased did not inspire confidence. The Trial Court also found that the stab wound received on the neck of the decea-sed was not responsible for his death because he was found to have died of a heart attack. The Trial Court having discussed the evidence of Jasubai (PW 1) has come to the conclusion that it was not a homicidal death. Chandrashekar Thakur (PW 2), son of the deceased, has also made similar statements. Likewise, PW 3 (another son of the deceased) has described the symptoms of heart attack noticed in the case of the deceased. The Trial Court has also discussed the evi-dence of Dr. Shiv Narayan Gupta (PW 5), who initially examined the deceased and noted that the deceased had suffered stab wound on a sensitive organ. However, the injuries despite being dangerous had been treated and cured. The Trial Court also discussed that the prosecution did not produce the doctor, who had treated the deceased at Bhopal and even Dr. Mishra, who had admitted the deceased on date of death was not examined. However, the injuries despite being dangerous had been treated and cured. The Trial Court also discussed that the prosecution did not produce the doctor, who had treated the deceased at Bhopal and even Dr. Mishra, who had admitted the deceased on date of death was not examined. Therefore, the Trial Court in the absence of such evidence reached the conclusion on the basis of evidence of Jasubai (PW. 1) that the deceased had fully recovered at Bhopal; his wounds had healed up and, therefore, he had been discharged from the hospital. Hence, the death was not found to be homicidal. The Trial Court has noticed contradictions between the statements of the Investigating Officer on the one hand and Jasubai (PW 1) and her son Chandrashekar (PW 2) on the other inasmuch as the Investigating Officer has mentioned that he had taken the statement of Harish Chandra (PW 3) at Bhopal and that of Jasubai (PW 1) and Chandrashekar Thakur (PW 2) on the spot of incident. This fact is not reflected in the statement of PW 3 that it was recorded at Bhopal. Thus, the Trial Court had not found it safe to rely on the statement of PW 7. The Trial Court has relied on the statement of PW 3 that the deceased had made an oral dying decla-ration to him. Another major contradic-tion noted by the Trial Court was that Jasubai (PW 1) and her son Chandra-shekar Thakur (PW 2) claiming to be the eye-witnesses of the incident have testified that they had lodged a report before admitting the deceased in the hospital. So is the statement of Harish-chandra (PW 3) also. However, since the police appears to have received informa-tion only by Exhibit P-4 sent by Dr. Gupta (PW 5) from the hospital the Trial Court has noted that though a report had been lodged by the wife and children of the deceased before taking him to hospital at Sujalpur, but the police by not produ-cing that report has suppressed a vital information which created a doubt about the credibility of the prosecution case. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned Coun-sels for the parties and perused the records. ( 5 ) FROM FIR (Exhibit P-8) it appears that this report was lodged only on information received from the doctor of Sujalpur hospital, and it is proved by Exhibit P-4. ( 4 ) WE have heard learned Coun-sels for the parties and perused the records. ( 5 ) FROM FIR (Exhibit P-8) it appears that this report was lodged only on information received from the doctor of Sujalpur hospital, and it is proved by Exhibit P-4. In the medical evidence (Exhibit P-3), it is noticed that the deceased had suffered an incised wound of the size 2-1/2 x 1- 1/2 inches which had cut the trachea of his right side neck. This injury had been noted to be dangerous to his life. From the post-mortem report and the testimony of Dr. V. P. Dubey, the injury sustained on the neck of the deceased had healed up and he has noticed only a scar of stitched wound. It also appears from the medical evidence that the deceased suffered a heart attack and died due to shock. Jasubai (PW 1) wife of the deceased has mentioned that on the date of incident her husband was inflicted knife injury by respondent Sitaram and other accused had only grappled with him. She called her sons and took the deceased to the City Hospital and her son Harish Chandra (PW 3) had lodged a report thereof at the City Police Station. The deceased remained admitted in that hospital for three days and thereafter he-was shifted to Bhopal. Her both the sons, namely, Chandrashekar Thakur (PW 2) and Harish Chandra (PW 3) accompanied the deceased to Bhopal where he remained hospitalised for about 10 to 11 days and thereafter he was discharged. He stayed at home for two days and his health having shown the symptoms of heart attack he was again hospitalised at Sujalpur at about 10 Oclock and died the same day at 1 Oclock. Chandra-shekar Thakur (PW 2) has also given identical evidence. Though, he has contradicted the statement of his mother in as much he said that the day his father was hospitalised at Sujalpur he was shifted to Bhopal being accompanied by him and his brother Harish Chandra. He also mentioned in the cross-examination that Satnam Singh (PW 7) had visited when he was at Bhopal. This witness has also said that his father never became unconscious and was conscious till he was carried to Bhopal. He also said that his father was conscious all through and he was able to speak. He also mentioned in the cross-examination that Satnam Singh (PW 7) had visited when he was at Bhopal. This witness has also said that his father never became unconscious and was conscious till he was carried to Bhopal. He also said that his father was conscious all through and he was able to speak. This witness said that accused Sitaram had caused the injury and he had also attempted to nab him. He also said that in his presence his elder brother had lodged a report at the police station and this report had been lodged before the deceased was admitted in the hospital. He said that the police had given a requisition, therefore, his father was admitted in the hospital. Harish Chandra (PW 3) has also supported him by saying that he had lodged a report on 12 Oclock at City Police Station. He deposed that his father was referred to Bhopal where he stayed for 10 to 11 days and after treatment he was discharged. He came back home and on the date of death all of sudden he started sinking. He was admitted in the hospital where he died. This witness in his cross-examination has mentioned that he was accompanied by his brother Chandrashekar Thakur (PW 2) to the police station for lodging the report and Satnam Singh (PW 7) had recorded this report. This witness also denied a suggestion that his father had become unconscious soon after he had received the stab wound. Rajendra Singh Raju (PW 4) was declared hostile. Dr. Shivnarayan Gupta (PW 5) has noted the injuries as aforesaid. He said that he had sent the information (Exhibit P-4) to the police station. He also mentioned that the deceased was not in a position to give a dying declaration because he had been given sedative. This statement of Dr. Gupta is in contradiction of the statements of PW 2 and PW 3. In his cross- examination he said that while admitting the deceased, he had asked PW 3 to go to police station and lodge a report. However, he denied knowledge whether PW 3 went to the police station and lodged a report. Dr. V. P. Dubey (PW 6) conducted post-mortem and gave opinion in respect of cause of death. In his cross- examination he said that while admitting the deceased, he had asked PW 3 to go to police station and lodge a report. However, he denied knowledge whether PW 3 went to the police station and lodged a report. Dr. V. P. Dubey (PW 6) conducted post-mortem and gave opinion in respect of cause of death. Satnam Singh (PW 7) said that he had lodged a report only on the basis of Exhibit P-4, (information received from the hospital ). He also said that he seized the articles of the deceased on 8. 7. 1991 and recorded his statement. He also said that he recorded the statement of Jasubai on 6. 8. 1991 and that of Chandrashekar Thakur on 8. 7. 199 1 at Sujalpur. He also said that he had taken the statement of Harish Chandra on 8. 7. 1991. This wit-ness in his cross-examination stated that Chandrashekar Thakur (PW2) and Harishchandra (PW 3) had never come to police station for lodging any report. He also said that he recorded the statement of Harishchandra at Bhopal but this fact is not supported by the statement of Harishchandra. However, Chandra-shekar (PW 2) has mentioned that Satnam Singh had visited him at Bhopal. B. L. Soni (PW 8) has proved arrest Panchnama (Exhibits P-il and P-12 of the accused), the inquest and the requisition for postmortem. He also seized the weapon of offence knife from the accused. ( 6 ) THUS, from the aforesaid ana-lysis of the evidence, it appears that the Trial Court has carefully gone through the entire records and then recorded acquittal. The evidence of Jasubai, Chandrashekar Thakur and Harish Chandra demonstrates that they had lodged a report in the City Police Station, Sujalpur, which has been found to be suppressed. This circumstance has been rightly held to be fatal to the prosecution case. Similarly, from the evidence of all the three witnesses it is obvious that the deceased remained hospitalised for about 10 to 11 days at Bhopal and he was discharged after the wound had healed up. It also appears that the deceased had all of sudden developed symptoms of heart attack on the date of death and, therefore, he was hospitalised but he died after three hours. It also appears that the deceased had all of sudden developed symptoms of heart attack on the date of death and, therefore, he was hospitalised but he died after three hours. In the post-mortem report and the statements of witnesses, nothing has come on record to show that the death was the direct result of the incised wound caused on the right side of his neck, which had healed up and only a scar thereof was seen. Thus the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the deceased did not meet a homicidal deal appears to be correct. That apart there are major contradictions between the statements of PW 1 to PW 3 on the one hand and of PW 7 on the other. ( 7 ) THUS, in view of aforesaid serious contradictions in the prosecution evidence when two views are possible, the accused respondent is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Thus, we do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgment. Hence, this criminal appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .