Judgment R. C. CHAVAN,J. ( 1 ) BY presenting this appeal, the State seeks to challenge acquittal of respondent recorded by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions judge, Buldana, for offences punishable under sections 307 and 397 of the Penal code. ( 2 ) THE facts which led to prosecution of the respondent are as under : ( 3 ) FIELDS of Bhikaji Malokar and respondent/accused are adjacent to each other. There have been several prosecutions and proceedings between Tanaji and his neighbour on account of various disputes. About three months prior to 7th may, 1992, respondent Tanaji had allegedly stolen rubber pipe from the well of his neighbours field, leading Bhikaji to lodge a report against Tanaji. Police had registered an offence on that report. ( 4 ) ON 7th May, 1992, at about 1 p. m. , Bhikajis wife Renuka was returning from the field and was passing through the field of one Bhagwan. According to her, Tanaji sneaked from behind, gave her a kick, causing her to fall down, picked up a stone and hit on the head of Renuka, leading to injuries to her left ear and portion of head above right eye and left ear. He tried to strangulate her. Her marriage necklace (Mangalsutra) broke. On hearing her shouts, Shamrao baburao Shelke rushed and rescued her. Accused then ran away. Salubai and shamrao took her to Government Hospital, whereafter she gave a report to police. ( 5 ) POLICE registered an offence and commenced investigation; in the course of which, they secured medical certificate of the victim, performed panchanama of the spot, recorded statements of witnesses, seized clothes of accused and also a mangalsutra (marriage necklace) from the accused. On completion of the investigation, they sent chargesheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, deulgaon-Raja. ( 6 ) ON finding that the accused had committed offences triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Buldana. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, charged the accused of offences punishable under sections 307 and 397 of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, charged the accused of offences punishable under sections 307 and 397 of the Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and hence was put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses. Upon consideration of the prosecution case in the light of the defence raised, the learned Additional sessions Judge came to acquit the accused. Hence, the State has appealed. ( 7 ) WE have heard Shri. A. G. Mujumdar, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Trial Court ought to have relied on victims own account of the incident, which received circumstantial corroboration from Salubai and Shamrao and also recovery of Mangalsutra vide Exhibit 27. Therefore, according to the learned additional Public Prosecutor, the appeal ought to be allowed. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the entire evidence in order to examine whether the view taken by the learned Trial Judge was not warranted by the evidence tendered before him. ( 8 ) COMPLAINANT Renuka was examined as PW 1. It need not to be reiterated that the parties have a running feud between them. Apart from Renuka herself, her husband PW 6 Bhikaji also does not dispute that there have been previous quarrels between them. The testimony of witnesses has to be examined in this backdrop. PW 1 Renuka had stated that on the incidental day, she had gone to the field with PW 2 Salubai. Salubai then proceeded to temple of Goddess, while renuka was returning home. When she was in the field of Bhagwan, the accused administered a kick on her back, making her fall on ground, but interestingly with her face towards sky. Accused then pressed her chest with knee and also pressed her neck. He then took away her marriage necklace and hit her with a stone, causing her to receive bleeding injury. She states that there was no eye- witness. She became unconscious and regained consciousness after half-an-hour. Salubai and Shamrao then came and carried her to hospital at Antri Khedekar in bullock cart after giving her water. He then took away her marriage necklace and hit her with a stone, causing her to receive bleeding injury. She states that there was no eye- witness. She became unconscious and regained consciousness after half-an-hour. Salubai and Shamrao then came and carried her to hospital at Antri Khedekar in bullock cart after giving her water. In cross-examination, she admitted that she was suffering from some illness due to weakness and was required to take medicines. She also admitted that she belongs to Maratha community, whereas the accused is Bouddha. She claimed to have stated in her complaint that the accused pressed her neck by keeping his knee on the chest. She contradicted a part of the complaint to the effect that her Mangalsutra broke. ( 9 ) PW 2 Salubai stated that after praying at the temple when she was returning, she found complainant lying unconscious in the field of Bhagwan ganpat. She served water to the complainant and after half-an-hour, complainant regained consciousness, whereafter she was taken to Dr. Rathod of her village. In cross-examination, she was categorical that she did not see any Shamrao Shelke sitting near the complainant and contradicted relevant part of her police statement. Shamrao, who was examined as PW 3, stated that he heard cries of the complainant and, therefore, went towards her. He found the complainant in unconscious condition in the field of Bhagwan Ganpat. He states that Salubai came thereafter and then the accused ran away from the place of offence and that he saw accused running. He also claimed to have chased the accused, but could not catch him. After Renuka regained conscious, he went to call the father of complainant, whose name Shamrao did not remember. ( 10 ) THE evidence of PW 3 Shamrao would have to be rejected outright, because first, Salubai did not state about his presence; secondly, he claims to have reached before Salubai and also states having seen accused running away; and thirdly, he states having heard complainants cries, when complainant herself does not state that she raised any cries. His cross-examination would show that he is barber by profession and is affiliated to Patil community on whose mercy he admittedly lives. As already pointed out, the accused is a Bouddha. The witness admitted that he does not cut hair of Bouddhas. His cross-examination would show that he is barber by profession and is affiliated to Patil community on whose mercy he admittedly lives. As already pointed out, the accused is a Bouddha. The witness admitted that he does not cut hair of Bouddhas. This seems to be the cause of his zealous exaggerations to support the complainant. ( 11 ) COMPLAINANTs own version cannot be believed, because while in her report at Exhibit 12 she had made no reference to the accused snatching away mangalsutra and had merely stated that the beads of Mangalsutra were broken, in her evidence before the Court she improved her account by alleging that the accused had snatched away her Mangalsutra. This was obviously done in order to implicate the accused in an offence of robbery. The Investigating Officer too seems to have gone along with these exaggerations and overkilled, by showing recovery of a Mangalsutra (marriage necklace) from the right side pocket of pant of accused on 10th May,1992, that is full three days after the incident. It is not clear as to whether the Investigating Officer had no qualms of conscience in suggesting that a robber would continue to keep the robbed item in the same pocket of his pant for full three days after the incident, just waiting for the Police to nab him with the incriminating article, or whether the Investing Officer felt that the authorities before whom these investigative forays were to be placed, were gullible enough to accept this fairy tale. On a re-appraisal of the entire evidence, we find that the learned Trial Judge rightly rejected the complainants account. Hence, we see no reason to set aside the respondents acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Judge. ( 12 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed