R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- Taking exception to the respondents' acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 330 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred this appeal and the victim's widow has preferred this revision. 2. Facts, which led to prosecution of the respondents - Forest Officers, are as under: 3. Deceased Sheikh Kalu Sheikh Rasul along with Sheikh Jamir Sakawatkhan were involved in stealing forest wood. Respondent No.2 Premdayal Raghuwanshi, forest employee; respondent No.3 Ananda Wankhade, forest guard, and respondent No.4 Damodhar Jadhao, forest watchman, had gone to the forest on 9-11-1991 at about 6 p.m. to seize illegally cut forest produce. Victim Sheikh Kalu assaulted and injured the forest employees with knife. Sheikh Jamir fled, leaving the stolen forest produce on the spot. Respondent No.1 Range Forest Officer Tarhale apprehended Sheikh Kalu. It was alleged by one Moti Khan, brother of Sheikh Kalu's wife, that Sheikh Kalu had been severely beaten up by four respondents - forest officials - and admitted to Civil Hospital, Akola, where Sheikh Kalu met with his death in 12-11-1991. On this report, police commenced investigation. 4. After performing inquest on the body of Sheikh Kalu, it was sent for postmortem examination. Viscera was preserved, but the results from the Laboratory did not show presence of any poison. Police recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, sent charge-sheet to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patur. On finding that the accused were involved in an offence of murder triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Akola. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the accused of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 330 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused is that though Sheikh Kalu was apprehended by them, he was left in charge if the driver of the jeep and that he had moved away on his own. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. The defence of the accused is that though Sheikh Kalu was apprehended by them, he was left in charge if the driver of the jeep and that he had moved away on his own. Later on, search revealed that Sheikh Kalu was in a pit in a jungle in the said forest and was picked up and lodged in Civil Hospital, Akola, where he succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, according to them, they had not inflicted any injury on Sheikh Kalu after he was apprehended. They state that when Sheikh Kalu assaulted respondent Raghuwanshi and others with a knife respondent No.2, 3 and 4 had retaliated and beaten up Sheikh Kalu with sticks and then he was taken to the Range Forest Office. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence raised, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to acquit all the four respondents. 6. We have heard Shri. D. B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, Shri. S. A. Jaipurkar with Shri. Z. A. Haq, the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, and Shri. S. A. Brahme, the learned counsel for the respondents. We have gone though the entire evidence with the help of the learned counsel in order to find out whether the learned Trial Judge had erred in acquitting the accused. 7. P.W.12 Dr. Shiraz Razi Ansari had examined Sheikh Kalu in Civil Hospital, Akola, at about 4.10 p.m. on 10-11-1991. Dr. Ansari states that the patient was semi-conscious and his general condition was not good. There were defused contusions on right ear and cheek, superficial contusions on the left and right sides of mandible, abrasions on the neck and chest, contusions on right elbow, back, buttock, left thigh, and both the legs and that bones had fractured. He issued a certificate, which is at Exhibit 71. He stated that the victim was admitted by respondent No.1 Tarhale and that the victim died on 12-11-1991. In cross-examination, Dr. Ansari stated that he had mentioned in Exhibit 72 that the case was of suspected poisoning or head injury, since the symptoms of both are the same. 8. Post-mortem on the dead body of Sheikh Kalu was performed by P.W.5 Dr. Jaware, who proved the notes of post-mortem examination at Exhibit 57. In cross-examination, Dr. Ansari stated that he had mentioned in Exhibit 72 that the case was of suspected poisoning or head injury, since the symptoms of both are the same. 8. Post-mortem on the dead body of Sheikh Kalu was performed by P.W.5 Dr. Jaware, who proved the notes of post-mortem examination at Exhibit 57. The external examination conducted by Dr. Jaware also showed various contusions, abrasions and fracture of left tibia and right fibula. According to Dr. Jaware, the cause of death was "coma". However, the cause of coma could not be detected. He had preserved viscera for chemical analysis and the report of the Laboratory at Exhibit 28 shows no poison. Dr. Jaware admitted that the injuries observed by him could be caused by an object like stick. In cross-examination, Dr. Jaware admitted that there was no injury on the vital parts. He felt that since all the vital organs of the deceased were pale, it could be the case of poisoning. He also admitted the possibility of the fracture being caused due to fall in a ditch. Considering the defence taken by respondents No.2 to 4 that they had overpowered Sheikh Kalu, when he attacked them with a knife, by beating Sheikh Kalu with lathis, the authorship of the injuries could be attributed to respondents No.2 to 4. At the same it cannot be overlooked that these injuries did not lead to the death of Sheikh Kalu, because Dr. Jaware, the autopsy surgeon does not say so. 9. P.W.13 Dr. Sawal had examined three respondents on 9-11-1991 and had issued certificates in respect of injuries observed on them. Respondent No.3 Ananda Wankhade had an incised wound, admeasuring 3 cms. X 1/2 cm. X 1/2 cm., 1 inch from midline on the fifth rib on the left side horizontal in direction with bleeding, which was caused within six hours. Ananda has to be admitted to Civil Hospital, Akola, for further treatment. He proved certificate at Exhibit 74 in respect of injuries to Ananda. Respondent No.2 Premdayal Raghuwanshi had a stab wound on the left hypocondrium in mid-circular line near omemtum, admeasuring 2.5 cms. x 1 cm. and Premdayal too was admitted in the hospital. Certificate in respect of Premdayal is at Exhibit 75. Respondent No.4 Damodhar Jadhao had an incised wound on left buttock, admeasuring 3 cms. X 1 cm. Respondent No.2 Premdayal Raghuwanshi had a stab wound on the left hypocondrium in mid-circular line near omemtum, admeasuring 2.5 cms. x 1 cm. and Premdayal too was admitted in the hospital. Certificate in respect of Premdayal is at Exhibit 75. Respondent No.4 Damodhar Jadhao had an incised wound on left buttock, admeasuring 3 cms. X 1 cm. X 3 cms., and he too was admitted as an indoor patient. All of them seem to have been taking treatment from 9-11-1991 to 28-111991 as indoor patients.' Considering the nature of injuries, assault by knife could be the cause, justifying a retaliatory attack by lathis. 10. P.W.2 Head Constable Vasant Tidke stated that on 9-11-1991, respondent No.1 Range Forest Officer Tarhale came to Alegaon Police Outpost and informed hi m of murderous attack on respondents No.2 to 4 by Sheikh Kalu. P.W.2 went to the Range Forest Office at Alegaon and found respondents No.2 to 4 in an injured condition and sent them to Civil Hospital with necessary requisitions. On 9-11-1991, he chalked an occurrence report, upon which an offence was registered against Sheikh Kalu on 10-11-1991. The FIR is at Exhibit 46, while the occurrence report is at Exhibit 48. 11. P.W.3 Police Constable Dnyandeo corroborated the version of the defence that Sheikh Kalu was with the forest officials in the jeep from 9-11-1991 till 5.30 a.m. on 10-11-1991, during which time respondents No.2 to 4 had been admitted to Civil Hospital, Akola, by taking them in the same jeep. 12. P.W.4 Bismillakhan Rahimkhan, who runs a tea stall at ST. Stand, Alegaon, stated that respondents No.1 to 4 had ordered tea at the Range Forest Office and accordingly he had taken tea to be served to them. He found that Sheikh Kalu was in the jeep of the Departments with hands tied and mouth gagged. However, this itself would not show that Sheikh Kalu was beaten to death by the respondents. The value of testimony of this witness is eroded, because he admitted in cross-examination that the police had tutored him as to what he should depose in the Court. His statement was recorded seven days after the incident. He also admitted that due to a head injury, he was a reduced memory. Considering that Bismillakhan was a mere chance witness and that he was tutored before he entered into the witness-box, his testimony would be of no use. His statement was recorded seven days after the incident. He also admitted that due to a head injury, he was a reduced memory. Considering that Bismillakhan was a mere chance witness and that he was tutored before he entered into the witness-box, his testimony would be of no use. In any case, he had merely seen Sheikh Kalu in the jeep, which would not indicate any ill-treatment by the respondents. 13. Jamirkhan, who is possibly arrayed as co-accused along with Sheikh Kalu in the report given by accused No.1 Tarhale for assault on forest officials, was examined as P.W.6. He admitted that about an year before the incident, he had worked as labourer with Forest Department, but was removed after working for four to five months. He stated that when he was proceeding towards his field at Karla, at about 5 to 6 p.m., a jeep from Forest Department came from Alegaon side. Sheikh Kalu was proceeding to Alegaon side from Sheikh Kalu's field at Shekapur. The accused called Sheikh Kalu to jeep and though Sheikh Kalu refused, they forcibly took Sheikh Kalu in the jeep towards Alegaon. He contradicted several parts of his police statement to the effect that Sheikh Kalu was sitting in the bullock cart loaded with teak wood; that about 10 persons and jeep driver alighted from the jeep, including Raghuwanshi, Wankhade, Damu, Shrirang Khillare and Watchman Waghmare; that Raghuwanshi stopped the bullock cart of Sheikh Kalu and that Sheikh Kalu got down with an axe in his hand; that Raghuwanshi demanded axe from Sheikh Kalu and that Sheikh Kalu gave the axe to Raghuwanshi; that Raghuwanshi called him, that is Jamirkhan, to sit in the bullock cart along with Watchman Shrirang Khillare; that Sheikh Kalu did not sit in the jeep and told Raghuwanshi that he would walk on foot; and that Jamirkhan heard noise and noticed scuffle between accused No.2 and Sheikh Kalu, etc. The witness also stated that he did not know whether in the scuffle, Sheikh Kalu had assaulted accused No.2 to 4 with a knife. In view of this, the evidentiary value of testimony of Jamirkhan is completely eroded. 14. P.W.7 Uttam Telgote stated that he and one Talyarkhan had gone to the house of Abidabi at Shelgaon for purchasing Jwar. The witness also stated that he did not know whether in the scuffle, Sheikh Kalu had assaulted accused No.2 to 4 with a knife. In view of this, the evidentiary value of testimony of Jamirkhan is completely eroded. 14. P.W.7 Uttam Telgote stated that he and one Talyarkhan had gone to the house of Abidabi at Shelgaon for purchasing Jwar. While returning from her house, at Naigaon, they heard noise from forest bungalow and went near the bungalow and saw that accused No.1 and other forest employees were beating Sheikh Kalu. He admitted in his cross-examination that though he had stated to the police that they had gone to the sister of Talyarkhan, because old and cheap Jwar was available, that they had taken night halt in the house of the sister of Talyarkhan, that on the next day morning they heard the noise from the forest bungalow at Navegaon, where they reached at 10.30 a.m., or that respondent No.1 had asked them to go away, the police omitted to record the same in his statement. The testimony of Uttam too is thus unreliable, not only because of his omissions, but also because he is a contrived witness, whose taking a detour to the concerned area, is unnatural. Secondly, the evidence of PW-3 PC Dnyandeo would rule out the victim being taken to Navegaon. 15. The other witnesses, namely, P.W.8 Motikhan, who merely gave a report at Exhibit 61 without any personal knowledge, or PW-9 Sheikh Amir or PW-10 Shamsing, who witnessed various panchanamas or PW -11 Shahanaz, victim's widow, do not throw any light on the manner in which the victim sustained injuries, which led to his death. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that according to Dr. Jaware, the victim did not have any injury on his vital parts. Therefore, there is no conclusive finding that the injuries observed caused victim's death. The contusions or abrasions, which had been noticed by the doctors treating Sheikh Kalu and examining his body, could have been caused by fall, as also in the course of retaliation by respondents No.2 to 4. Respondents No.2 to 4 themselves had sustained incised and stab wounds by a sharp weapon, which necessitated their hospitalisation from 911-1991 to 28-11-1991. The contusions or abrasions, which had been noticed by the doctors treating Sheikh Kalu and examining his body, could have been caused by fall, as also in the course of retaliation by respondents No.2 to 4. Respondents No.2 to 4 themselves had sustained incised and stab wounds by a sharp weapon, which necessitated their hospitalisation from 911-1991 to 28-11-1991. The fact that three forest employees received the stab wounds, would show the magnitude and the ferocity of attack by the victim and would make the story of beating by lathi to overpower Sheikh Kalu, probable and justified. 16. In view of this, the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Judge that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused persons inflicted injuries upon the victim in order to cause his death or in order to extort any confession from him cannot be said to be improbable or perverse. Therefore, we see no reason to upset the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge. 17. In the result, the appeal as well as criminal revision application fail and are dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents/accused, shall stand cancelled.