Judgment R. C. CHAVAN,J. ( 1 ) TAKING exception to acquittal of eight respondents by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 302 simpliciter of the penal Code, the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 1994 and complainant Smt. Annapurnabai has preferred Criminal Revision No. 175 of 1994. ( 2 ) THE facts which led to prosecution of eight respondents are as under : one Mahadeo Marotrao Deshmukh, originally hailed from village Taroda, tahsil : Karanja, District : Wardha. However, he used to reside at Bhopal in madhya Pradesh. He used to visit Taroda where he had agricultural land, once in a while, and used to stay in his own house. There are two groups in village taroda. One belonging to community of Bhoyars to which victim Mahadeo deshmukh belongs, and the other that of Kunbis to whom the respondents/ accused persons belong. On 10-6-1989 when the victim was returning from his field to his residential house along with his relations he was accosted by the accused at a well near the house of his cousin, complainant Ramabhau. The accused were armed with sticks and axes. They assaulted Mahadeorao with the weapons in their hands causing severe bleeding injuries to Mahadeo. The relations of Mahadeo started for Karanja, Taluka headquarter, with Mahadeo in a bullock cart, but on way Mahadeo breathed his last and hence, his body was brought back to the village. Rambhau went to Police Station at Karanja and lodged report, whereupon an offence was registered. ( 3 ) AFTER performing inquest the Police sent the dead body for post-mortem, performed panchnama of the spot, recorded statements of witnesses and interrogated the suspects, seized incriminating articles, sent the incriminating articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation charge-sheeted all the respondents and one Wasudeo Mohod before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Arvi. The learned Magistrate committed the case to Court of Sessions at Wardha. Wasudeo Mohod died on 12-8-1991 and the case as against him, therefore, abated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was assigned, charged remaining eight accused/present respondents, of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 simpliciter and 302 read with 149 of the Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and hence, were put on trial. Wasudeo Mohod died on 12-8-1991 and the case as against him, therefore, abated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was assigned, charged remaining eight accused/present respondents, of the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 302 simpliciter and 302 read with 149 of the Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty and hence, were put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and on behalf of the accused in all six defence witnesses were examined. The defence of the accused was that they have been falsely implicated. ( 4 ) IT was stated that accused No. 1 Hansraj is suffering from arthritis and infact cannot run and therefore could not have participated in the incident. Accused No. 5 Bhaiyyaji Mohod was stated to have been away at Nagpur at the time of the incident, whereas accused No. 7 Dhanraj was at Katol to attend marriage ceremony of a relation. Upon considering the prosecution evidence, in the light of defence raised, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the prosecution failed to prove complicity of the respondents-accused in the incident and therefore, proceeded to acquit them by an elaborate judgment running into 88 pages. Aggrieved thereby, as already stated, the State has appealed and smt. Annapurnabai has preferred a revision, principally on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have disbelieved the ocular testimony of as many as four witnesses who saw the murderous assault launched on Mahadeo by the respondents. It has also been contended that the ocular testimony receives substantial corroboration from seizure of incriminating articles at the instance of some of the respondents. Therefore, the State and Smt. Annupurnabai pray for setting aside the acquittal recorded by the learned additional Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) WE have heard Adv. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state, Ms. Udeshi with Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for revision Petitioner, Shri Kalar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 and Shri Jasutkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 7. ( 6 ) WITH the help of the learned counsel appearing for parties, we have reappraised the entire evidence in order to examine, whether the learned trial judge has erred in concluding that involvement of the respondents was not established by the prosecution. 3, 4 and 7. ( 6 ) WITH the help of the learned counsel appearing for parties, we have reappraised the entire evidence in order to examine, whether the learned trial judge has erred in concluding that involvement of the respondents was not established by the prosecution. There are four eyewitnesses to the incident as stated by the Additional Public Prosecutor. They are P. W. 1 Ramabhau ganpatrao Deshmukh, P. W. 2 Shamrao Tekam, P. W. 4 Annapurnabai Deshmukh (who witnessed the incident in part) and P. W. 5 Subhash Laxman Deshmukh. Except for Shamrao Tekam, P. W. 2, other three are related to each other. P. W. 1 rambhau Deshmukh is victims cousin, P. W. 4 Annapurnabai is victims sister- in-law and P. W. 5 Subhash is victims nephew. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that Mahadeo met with his death on account of as many as 11 ante-mortem injuries, including injury to vital organ like brain, as observed by P. W. 10 Dr. Lavhale in the notes of Post-mortem at Exh. 116. The nature of injuries clearly points the fact that they were inflicted in order to kill mahadeo. The question is only about authorship of injuries. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 Rambhau stated that the incident took place on 10-6-1989 at about 5. 00 p. m. and proved the report about the incident given by him at Police station, Karanja. This report is at Exh. 62. While in the report Rambhu had stated about only one incident which took place near the well near his house and wherein all the accused persons assaulted Mahadeo, in the story unfolded before the Court not only Rambhau, but other witnesses also stated about the incident in two parts. According to them, first part of the incident took place near the well. The accused persons had accosted them at the well and had started pelting stones. P. W. 4 Annapurnabai came and asked the accused as to why they were beating mahadeo and at that time the other three witnesses took Mahadeo by another road to the house of Dattu Baringe where the fatal assault on Mahadeo allegedly occurred. ( 9 ) IT is not clear as to why Mahadeo was required to be taken towards Dattu baringes house. Sketch of the map prepared by the prosecution at Exh. ( 9 ) IT is not clear as to why Mahadeo was required to be taken towards Dattu baringes house. Sketch of the map prepared by the prosecution at Exh. 160 shows that it was utterly unnecessary to take Mahadeo towards Dattu Baringes house if Mahadeo was to proceed to the sanctuary of his own house to save himself. The witnesses have been cross-examined at length on the topography of the village. P. W. 1 Rambhau had himself admitted that house of Mahadeo is at corner along the North-South and East-West roads and it had doors on both the sides and one of the doors opens towards East in the lane, which is situated near the well. This can be found on the fourth page of lengthy paragraph 4 of his cross-examination. P. W. 4 Annapurnabai had also stated that the well was just at a distance of 15 feet from the rear door of her house. P. W. 5 Subhash stated that annapurnabai intervened and gave them some breathing time and therefore, they tried to take Mahadeo towards his own house. It is indeed surprising that instead of straight-way stepping inside his house to save him from the assault by the accused, the eyewitnesses choose a detour to Dattu Baringes house. ( 10 ) IF the accused persons had formed mob at the well and they were armed with sticks and axes, it is not known as to what prompted these persons to start pelting stones at Mahadeo as stated by the eyewitness. Three adult males, P. W. I rambhau, P. W. 2 Shamrao and P. W. 5 Subhash, accompanied Mahadeo, but none of them seem to have suffered in the assault and none of them tried to intervene even when the first assault took place. It seems to have been left to a woman, p. W. 4 Annapurnabai, to intervene and stand between accused and the victim in order to attempt to save the victim. It is surprising that the words of annapurnabai had a magical effect of the assailants as well as victim, making the victim leave one way and assailants leave the other way, since nobody states that the assailants gave a chase to the victim. P. W. 4 Annapurnabai then curiously stated that she went inside her house when Mahadeo was taken away from in front of her house. P. W. 4 Annapurnabai then curiously stated that she went inside her house when Mahadeo was taken away from in front of her house. ( 11 ) WHILE P. W. 1 Rambhau Deshmukh stated that after the incident he went to the Police Station and gave report at Exh. 62. P. W. 9 A. P. I. Patil had received report and chalked formal F. I. R. Exh. 94 on the basis of the report. It shows the time of reporting the incident at 23. 35 hrs. on 10-6-1989. A. P. I. Shri Patil was cross-examined about the time taken in transcribing the report. He stated that he started the work of writing copy of F. I. R. at 11. 00 p. m. and then again corrected himself to say that he started the work at 11. 30 p. m. There is nothing to show that p. W. 1 hand given report at an earlier point of time. Though, P. W. 9 A. P. I. Patil stated that the complainant came at about 8 to 9 p. m. he would not back it up by any entry in record. Hence, it would have to be held that the report was given around 11. 00 p. m. P. W. I Rambhau could not explain as to why it took three hours for him to reach the Police Station from Bus-Stand at Karanja which is just two furlongs from the Bus-Stand. Therefore, though he denied the suggestion that he and others from his group deliberated upon the contents of the report, possibility of report having been given after duly consulting each other cannot be ruled out. ( 12 ) EACH of the four witnesses improved upon the story significantly. All these improvements were duly put up to the witnesses as omissions and were eventually duly proved in the testimony of the Investigating Officers, P. W. 9 a. P. I. Patil and P. W. 10 P. S. I. Hingmire. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 A. P. I Patil stated that on 14-6-1989 at about 5. 00 p. m. accused wasudeo appeared in the Police Station with an axe. The axe and blood stained clothes of Wasudeo were seized by A. P. I. Patil in presence of panchas vide seizure Memo at Exh. 97. Accused Wasudeo was accordingly arrested. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 A. P. I Patil stated that on 14-6-1989 at about 5. 00 p. m. accused wasudeo appeared in the Police Station with an axe. The axe and blood stained clothes of Wasudeo were seized by A. P. I. Patil in presence of panchas vide seizure Memo at Exh. 97. Accused Wasudeo was accordingly arrested. This seizure memo was supposed to have been witnessed by P. W. 11 Bhagwat and p. W. 8 Kamalnayan. Surrender by Wasudeo four days after the incident is surprising. Wasudeo has expired. ( 14 ) IT is the contention of the respondents-accused that infact, the victim had a fight with one Shri Hingnikar Chairman of the Co-operative Society in the village and that even the complainant participated in that quarrel. The complainant denied that the quarrel led to a criminal case being filed against mahadeo Deshmukh and the complainant. Though P. W. I. Rambhau complainant stated that the incident which is the basis of present case took place on 10-6-1989 at 5. 00 p. m. near the house of Dattu Baringe, where Mahadeo was assaulted by the respondents accused, in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination he stated that he did not know, whether at the same time i. e. 5. 00 p. m. Mahadeo Deshmukh, Hansraj dhurve, Dhanraj Dhurve and others had assaulted Wasudeo Mohod. Now, if the incident of assault by respondents on Mahadeo had taken place in presence of p. W. I Rambhau at 5. 00 p. m. his not knowing whether Mahadeo and others assaulted Wasudeo is inexplicable. It is indicative of his hiding truth. He denied the suggestion that Wasudeo Mohod alone had assaulted Mahadeo Deshmukh. ( 15 ) RETICENCE of P. W. 1, in ruling out the assault by Mahadeo and others on wasudeo at 5. 00 p. m. is indicative of possibility of fight between only Mahadeo and Wasudeo which led to Mahadeos death. This would also explain the large scale improvements in the prosecution story and the contradictions made by the witnesses. Therefore, though the incident is stated to have been witnessed by p. W. I Rambhau, P. W. 2 Shamrao and P. W. 5 Subhash, their testimonies were rightly discarded by the learned trial Judge. This would also explain the large scale improvements in the prosecution story and the contradictions made by the witnesses. Therefore, though the incident is stated to have been witnessed by p. W. I Rambhau, P. W. 2 Shamrao and P. W. 5 Subhash, their testimonies were rightly discarded by the learned trial Judge. ( 16 ) TO sum up (i) eyewitness coming up with a version of the incident which is significantly different from the prosecution case, (ii) unnatural splitting of incident in two parts at two spots with an unwarranted detour towards house of dattua Baringe, (iii) possibility of cooking up a story during the three hours spent before lodging F. I. R. , (iv) P. W. I Rambhaus evasiveness about a contemporaneous attack on Wasudeo, (v)Wasudeos surrendering at Police Station, (vi) absence of material to connect the accused to the incident from report from forensic Science Laboratory at Exh. 109, make the non-involvement of respondents probable. ( 17 ) IF the view taken by the learned trial Judge is probable and not perverse then ordinarily an appellate Court would not be justified in taking a different view. ( 18 ) IN view of this, we dismiss the appeal filed by the State as also criminal Revision Application preferred by Annapurnabai. Bail Bonds, if any furnished by the respondents- accused shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed