R.C. CHAVAN, J .:- Taking exception to the respondents acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred this appeal. 2. Facts, which led to prosecution of the respondent, are as under: 3. Victim Rameshwar Haribhau Bharsakhale had old enmity with the respondent and his brother Namdeo. On 19-9-1988, when Rameshwar was sitting in the shop of Baburao, Namdeo called Rameshwar. Namdeo and Rameshwar went away. In a few minutes, Rameshwar's cries for help were help were heard from the house of the accused. These cries attracted, amongst others, victim wife Prabha. They saw Rameshwar lying in an injured condition with accused standing with a wooden log in his hand. On a report by one Vinod, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. 4. Police came to the spot and shifted injured Rameshwar to hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on the next day at about 6.40 p.m. After an inquest, the body of Rameshwar was sent for post-mortem examination. Police recorded statements of witnesses, seized incriminating articles, sent the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of investigation, charge-sheeted respondent Pundlik. His brother Namdeo absconded. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Amravati, who received the chargesheet, committed the case of the Court of Sessions. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, to whom the case was assigned, charged the respondent of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Respondent Pundlik pleaded not guilty and hence was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused. It was the defence of the accused that he saw Rameshwar lying in a pool of blood with his brother Namdeo standing by the side of Rameshwar. Namdeo ran away with some weapon. He stated that the witnesses have falsely implicated him in the case. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence in the light of defence taken, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to hold that the charge was not proved and proceeded to acquit the respondent/accused. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed by the State. 6. We have heard Shri. A. D. Sonak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Shri. S. M. Ghodeswar, the learned counsel, who was appointed to represent the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed by the State. 6. We have heard Shri. A. D. Sonak, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and Shri. S. M. Ghodeswar, the learned counsel, who was appointed to represent the respondent. With the help of both the learned counsel, we have gone through the entire evidence in order to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge. 7. In this case, PW 1 Baburao, PW 2 Azizkhan and PW 3 Prabha, widow of the victim, saw accused Pundlik on the spot with the victim lying in an injured State. PW 1 Baburao stated that on the incidental evening, Namdeo had called Rameshwar from his shop and soon thereafter he heard cries for help. When he went to the spot, he saw Rameshwar lying on the ground with accused Pundlik with a Mogri (Wooden log) in his hand standing by the side of Rameshwar. Namdeo, holding a stick in his hand, was also standing at a distance of 2 to 3 feet from Rameshwar. Prabha came after PW 1 Baburao. When Prabha sought to go near her husband Pundlik raised the wooden log in order to assault her. He states that Azizkhan caught hold to Pundlik, but he gave a jerk and ran away, whereas Namdeo continued to remain at the spot. In cross-examination, he stated that when he reached the spot of incident, many other persons had already gathered. 8. PW 2 Azizkhan stated that at about 7 p.m., he had gone to the shop of PW 1 Baburao to make some purchases. Rameshwar was sitting there. Accused Pundlik called Rameshwar and Rameshwar went along with Pundlik. Then he heard cries fur help and when he reached the house of the accused, he saw Rameshwar lying on the ground in an injured condition. When Azizkhan arrested accused Pundlik, the accused caught Azizkhan by the vest, giving him push threw the wooden log at the spot and went away. He stated that Namdeo was not present. He stated that the victim's wife Prabha came there after him and when she sought to go to be courtyard where her husband was lying, he prevented her from going to the husband. He stated that Namdeo was not present. He stated that the victim's wife Prabha came there after him and when she sought to go to be courtyard where her husband was lying, he prevented her from going to the husband. He denied having stated to the police that Namdeo was standing with a stick or that Namdeo had any enmity with Rameshwar or that Namdeo left the stick or ran away. Thus, it may be seen that while in the original story narrated by him to the police. he had stated about accused Namdeo having enmity and then running away from the spot. he stated before the Court that it was Pundlik. who ran away. His testimony that Namdeo was not at all present, is contrary to the observation of PW 1 Baburao that Namdeo continued to remain at the spot itself. 9. PW. 1 Prabha suited that she heard cries when she was at her house. She went and saw accused Pundlik assaulting her husband with Magri, that is a wooden log, and that accused Pundlik raised the said wooden log over her head in order to assault her, when Azizkhan caught Pundlik. She too stated that Pundlik pushed Azizkhan and ran away thowing Magri. She stated that she was Namdeo at the spot, but he was also running away and that Namdeo had in fact run away before accused Puncllik. She gave a story about an incident, which took place seven months prior to the incident dated 19-9-1988. when accused Pundlik had come drunk and fallen on her person when she was in the court-yard of her house by the side of the road. She had given a report to the police. In cross-examination, she admitted that there were number of omissions in her police statement. 10. It may be seen from the evidence of these three witnesses that while Baburao and Azizkhan did not sec the assault. Prahha claimed to have seen the assault though she came after Baburao. The evidence of the witnesses about the presence of Namdeo and running away of accused Pundlik is contradictory to each other's versions. The possibility of all the three witnesses, therefore, not having been present when the incident took place and having reached the spot only after the incident, cannot be ruled out. The evidence of the witnesses about the presence of Namdeo and running away of accused Pundlik is contradictory to each other's versions. The possibility of all the three witnesses, therefore, not having been present when the incident took place and having reached the spot only after the incident, cannot be ruled out. It may also be seen what while Baburao states that Namdeo took Rameshwar from his shop, according to Azizkhan, it was Pundlik, who took Rameshwar from Baburao's shop. 11. PW 5 Dr. Bonde had examined Rameshwar, when he was admitted to the hospital and had found that there were four bone deep incised wounds on various parts of the head, He stated that injuries could have been caused by some shop weapon and not by Article No.2 Mogri or Artick No.3 Stick shown to him. He was confronted with a portion from Modi's Medical Jurisprudence about appearance of injuries by blunt weapon on the scalp. He agreed with the proposition that a scalp would by a blunt weapon may resemble an incised would and hence the edges and ends of the wound must be carefully seen. PW 5 Dr. Bonde has also observed that the edges were regular. Therefore, there is no question of his mistaking the four incised wounds caused by sharp weapon to be the ones caused by blunt weapon. Regular edges rule out use of blunt weapon. 12. The notes of post mortem examination at Exhibit 40 would also show that the victim had five incised wounds. The fifth injury seems to be the wound very close to the first injury. Thus, since both Autopsy Surgeon and Dr. Bonde had observed incised wounds, the story that the wounds were caused by the weapon seized in presence of PW 6 Duryodhan, vide Exhibit 35, appears unworthy of belief. It is true that when ocular account of the incident is in conflict with medical opinion, the ocular account should prevail lover the medical opinion. However, in this case, the ocular account is not just in conflict with the medical opinion, but makes either the ocular account false or the observations of the doctors false. Since the two doctors would have had no reason to make any false observation and since the ocular account of PW 1 Baburao. However, in this case, the ocular account is not just in conflict with the medical opinion, but makes either the ocular account false or the observations of the doctors false. Since the two doctors would have had no reason to make any false observation and since the ocular account of PW 1 Baburao. PW 2 Azizkhan and PW 3 Prabha is riddled with, inter se, inconsistencies and contradictions, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Judge was in error in rejecting the ocular account. 13. PW 7 Vinod had reported the matter to the police vide Exhibits 37 and 38, which were recorded by PW 9 Head Constable Rajapure. The report would show that the injury had been caused to Rameshwar by means of an axe. PW 9 Vinod stated that on his enquiry with Rameshwar's wife, who was present at the spot, she had told him the accused Pundlik and assaulted her husband with, an axe and accordingly, he went and reported the matter to the police, while simultaneously causing the victim to be sent in a jeep to the hospital. Thus, the report given by PW 9 Vinod would also contradict the story of PW 1 Baburao, PW 2 Azizkhan and PW 3 Prabha. As stated by PW 9 Vinod in his report, Rameshwar received blows by an axe. The deviant version of PWs 1, 2 and 3 shows that the actual assault was not seen by any of these witnesses. 14. The clothes of the accused were seized vide Exhibit 29 in presence of PW 4 Pandurang by the Investigating Officer PW 8 PSI Kadu. These clothes were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Exhibit 42. The report of the Laboratory at Exhibit 44 shows that there was no blood on the clothes of the accused. In view of this, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Judge was in error in proceeding to acquit the respondent. 15. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondent shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.