JUDGMENT - MOHITE R.S., J.:---This is an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of original accused who have been acquitted by a judgment and order dated 9th October, 1991 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag, in Sessions Case No. 26/89. 2. The case of the prosecution was as under :-- (a) that accused No. 1 Janardan Kamble and the deceased Vasant Pawar were working in MASCO Company at Khopoli and were attached to Shivsena Pranit Kamgar Sena Union. Since there was a dispute between the Union and the company, both Janardan Kambale accused No. 1 and deceased Vasant Pawar were removed from their job. Thereafter the deceased was taken back on the job in the company and therefore, accused No. 1 joined another Union i.e. Congress Pranit Kamgar Utkarsha Sabha Union. This caused enmity between accused No. 1 and the deceased Vasant Pawar. According to the prosecution, there was also a quarrel between the accused persons and deceased Vasant Pawar over the land of one Rambhaji Kaly Badekar. (b) On 19-8-1988 at about 6.15 a.m. the deceased Vasant Pawar alongwith his brother Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2), Laxman Pawar, Rambhaji Pawar and Eknath Rama Badekar were passing on the road enroute to their place of work at MASCO Company situated in Khalapur. When they reached in front of the house of one Govind Bhau Badekar, accused Nos. 1 to 5 alongwith three other unknown persons armed with swords assaulted them on account of a previous enmity. Accused No. 1 gave a blow of sword on the head of deceased Vasant Pawar. After receipt of this blow, the deceased started running towards the house of one Raghunath Badekar and he entered the said house to save himself. According to the prosecution all the accused persons chased him and when he was about to enter into the house of Raghunath Badekar, accused No. 2 Balaji Badekar gave a blow of a sword on his legs. However, inspite of his injuries, deceased entered into the house of Raghunath Badekar but the accused also entered in the said house and gave blows of sword to him. (c) It was contended that in the meanwhile, accused Nos. 4 and 5 had given blows of swords to Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) who fell on the road because of his bleeding injuries. (c) It was contended that in the meanwhile, accused Nos. 4 and 5 had given blows of swords to Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) who fell on the road because of his bleeding injuries. (d) The owner of the said house came out of his house shouting that the deceased Vasant Pawar was killed by the accused persons in his house and thereafter all the accused persons ran away. (e) Later, the deceased Vasant Pawar and Ramesh Pawar were taken to the hospital at Karjat where Vasant Pawar was declared dead in the hospital and Ramesh Pawar was transferred to the Civil hospital, Thane for further treatment. It is the version of Ramesh Pawar that he was discharged after 10 to 15 days after treatment from the hospital. (f) The complaint was recorded at the behest of Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) by PSI Vasudeo Parulekar in the hospital at Karjat and the same was forwarded to the Police Station at Karjat and the offence bearing C.R. No. I 95/88 under sections 302, 307, 324, 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. PSI Vasudeo Parulekar (P.W. 15) then drew an inquest panchanama (Exh. 60) and the body was sent for post-mortem. He then proceeded to the scene of offence and drew panchanama of the scene of the offence including the house of Raghunath Badekar. The said panchanama was drawn in the presence of 2 panchas by name Baban Borade and Shrish More and is at (Exh. 65). He drew a panchanama of the place where the accused were said to have hidden themselves. The same is at (Exh. 66). He recorded statement of Shankar Badekar and others. On 21-8-1988 he arrested the accused Balaji Badekar, Prabhakar Badekar, Bandu Badekar and Dattatraya Deshmukh under a panchanama of arrest (Exh. 67). On 23-8-1988 he arrested accused No. 1 under a panchanama (Exh. 68). On that day he also recorded statement of witnesses Raghunath Badekar, Maruti Bhoir and Eknath Badekar. On 24-8-1988 he recorded Memorandum of accused Nos. On 21-8-1988 he arrested the accused Balaji Badekar, Prabhakar Badekar, Bandu Badekar and Dattatraya Deshmukh under a panchanama of arrest (Exh. 67). On 23-8-1988 he arrested accused No. 1 under a panchanama (Exh. 68). On that day he also recorded statement of witnesses Raghunath Badekar, Maruti Bhoir and Eknath Badekar. On 24-8-1988 he recorded Memorandum of accused Nos. 3 to 5 and also accused No. 2 which are at Exhibits 37 to 40 and all the four accused are said to have stated before him that they would point out the place behind the school at village Dixal where they had hidden the weapons and accordingly all the accused were taken in the Jeep and 4 swords are said to have been discovered. On 24-8-1988 accused No. 1 is said to have given a statement that he would point out the place where a sword was concealed by him and in pursuance of his statement, accused No. 1 is said to have taken out a sword from the bushes in village Dixal which was seized under a panchanama (Exh. 43). The Investigating Officer then attached the clothes of the accused, arrested accused No. 6 under a panchanama. He then sent blood stains clothes and other muddemal property to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. After receipt of the Chemical Analysers report, he filed the charge-sheet. 3. After committal to the Court of Sessions the charge was framed by the Court under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read with 149, 307, 324 read with 149 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 4. In all, 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused were recorded under section 313 of Cri.P.C. and their defence was of total denial. The defence did not dispute injuries caused to the deceased and Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) but suggested that the assailants were different and the incident has not occurred as per the version given by the prosecution witnesses. 5. It may be stated here that apart from evidence of Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) and Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) all other witnesses except the Investigating Officer (P.W. 15) did not support the prosecution case. On consideration of the entire material on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused of all charges. 5. It may be stated here that apart from evidence of Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) and Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) all other witnesses except the Investigating Officer (P.W. 15) did not support the prosecution case. On consideration of the entire material on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused of all charges. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court has dis-believed the version given by Subhash Pawar as well as injured witness Ramesh Pawar for reasons which we find cogent and which are given in the judgment. 6. As regards the evidence of Subhash Pawar and Ramesh Pawar, it must be borne in mind that admittedly, the deceased was on enmical terms with accused No. 1. There was dispute relating to land and union rivalry at the place of work. Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) is an injured witness. He is also an interested witness in the sense that he is a brother of the deceased Vasant Pawar. It is true that both these witnesses have sought to give a version wherein accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased by a sword on his head. According to them after suffering this assault on the head, accused No. 1 ran towards the house of Raghunath Badekar. On the threshold of this house, accused No. 2 is said to have given a sword blow on the legs of deceased Vasant Pawar. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 according to these 2 witnesses assaulted Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2). This is the nature of the overtacts which are attributed to the accused. Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) went to the hospital where his complaint was lodged. Thereafter, complaint of Subhash Pawar was forwarded to the Police Station and the same was recorded as the First Information Report at 9.30 a.m. The trial Court has held that the statement of Subhash Pawar recorded at 9.30 a.m. cannot be said to be the F.I.R. This finding is arrived at by the trial Court on the footing that one of the person by name Rambhaji Badekar had earlier approached the Police Station and there was a station diary entry at 7.05 a.m. which contained the information given by the said Rambhaji Badekar. We do not agree with this finding of the trial Court. We do not agree with this finding of the trial Court. A perusal of the entry in the station diary indicates that Rambhaji Badekar had merely informed the police that 8 outsiders had come to Kirawali village for assaulting. In our view, this message is not a message even in relation to the incident of assault upon the deceased and the injured. It is a vague and cryptic information on the basis of which some Police Constables were sent for making inquiries. 7. Be that as it may, the trial Court has accorded other reasons for dis-believing the version of Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) and Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2). The trial Court has rightly scrutinised their evidence with care and caution as Ramesh Pawar is the real brother of the deceased and Subhash Pawar was also from their group which was on enimical terms. There are certain circumstances which are enumerated here in below which throws some doubts as to whether version given by these 2 witnesses can be said to be believable. These circumstances are as under :- (a) The first blow and the beginning of the assault is said to have taken place on the village road at Kirawali. This spot is about 150 ft. away from the house of Raghunath Badekar towards which the deceased is supposed to have run. At this spot, the accused No. 1 is said to have given a sword blow on the head of the deceased. We find that there is no blood trail from the spot of first assault till the house of Raghunath. The blood stains are shown of having been found at only one place on this entire route. (b) That according to both the eye-witnesses Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) as well as Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2), Rambhaji Badekar was along with their group at the time when the accused commenced the assault. Not only this Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) in his examination-in-chief stated that after the deceased Vasant Pawar received the blow of sword on his head and yet ran ahead, Subhash Pawar, Rambhai Badekar and Eknath Pawar also ran alongwith him. It must be remembered that the accused is said to have run towards the house of Raghunath Badekar. All these statements clearly indicate that Rambhaji Badekar according to these witnesses must have been an eye-witness to this entire assault. It must be remembered that the accused is said to have run towards the house of Raghunath Badekar. All these statements clearly indicate that Rambhaji Badekar according to these witnesses must have been an eye-witness to this entire assault. Yet, Rambhaji Badekar was the first person to approach the Karjat Police Station at 7.05 a.m. The information given by him however, belies the fact of his being the eye-witness as there is no reference what-so-ever to the assault on the deceased or the injured. The station diary entry referred his version to the effect that 8 un-known persons having come to the village Kirawali for the purpose of assault. This throws serious doubt as to whether the assailants were identified, specially in the light of the fact that according to the witnesses some of them were wearing masks on their face. (c) It transpires from the record that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) after a period of 9 to 10 days after the occurrence of the incident. Ramesh Pawar in his evidence admitted that his statement was recorded after 9 to 10 days. He further admitted that he did not disclose the incident before the Medical Officer or to his relatives for a period of 9 to 10 days when he was in the hospital. In order to find if Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) may not have been interrogated for 9 to 10 days due to any serious injury on him, we have perused the medical certificate. We find from the same that though there are several incised injuries on him, the Doctor has opined in the certificate itself that all the injuries were simple in nature. It may be that 2 of the injuries were bone deep, that by itself would not make the injuries grevious, because the bone deep injuries are on the skull where the bone is just beneath the skin. The prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor to prove that any of the injuries on Ramesh Pawar were serious. The Investigating Officer could not give any explanation as to why his statement was recorded late and the evidence indicates that Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) and others had visited Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) in the hospital. The prosecution has failed to examine the Doctor to prove that any of the injuries on Ramesh Pawar were serious. The Investigating Officer could not give any explanation as to why his statement was recorded late and the evidence indicates that Subhash Pawar (P.W. 1) and others had visited Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) in the hospital. The under delay in recording the statement of Ramesh Pawar (P.W. 2) is one of the factors which is taken into account by the trial Court. (d) The scene of the offence panchanama (Exh. 65) indicates that blood was found in the house of Raghunath Badekar. Raghunath Badekar however, has not supported the prosecution. The scene of the offence panchanama (Exh. 65) was prepared in the presence of 2 panchas by name Baban Borada and Shirish More. This was the important piece of evidence. However, surprisingly, the prosecution has failed to obtain the presence of Baban Borade and Shirish More and both these panchas have not examined. 8. No doubt, the incident is a serious incident but we cannot loose sight of the fact that this is an appeal against acquittal. Taking of over all view of the matter, it cannot be said that view taken by the trial Court is totally perverse and not a possible view. 9. In this view of the matter, we decline to entertain this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. -----