JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.C. Jain, J.—Acquittal of the accused respondents Munna and Rais recorded on 2.2.1981 in Sessions Trial No. 113 of 1980 by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Pilibhit, under Section 307 read with Section 34, l.P.C. has been assailed by the State through this appeal. 2. The incident had occurred on 12.2.1980 at about 5.30 P.M. in Mohalla Razaganj of the town and Police Station Puranpur, District Pilibhit. The distance of the Police Station from the place of incident was 1-1/2 Km. and the F.I.R. was lodged by an eye-witness PW 1 Tufail Ahmad (brother-in-law of the injured) Mohd. Yusuf the same day at 6.10 P.M. It was alleged that about 1-1/2 years before the incident the accused Munna had abducted the sister of the victim Mohd. Yusuf and he was being prosecuted for that offence. Mohd. Yusuf was doing pairvi in that case against him. Cousin sister of the other accused Rais was allegedly married to the brother of Munna and both of them were friends. On the fateful day and time, Mohd. Yusuf was going from Puranpur to his village Sherpur Kalan on cycle. Tufail Ahmad, Yasin Ahmad, Zahid Khan and Mohd. Hanif were about 30-40 yards behind him. The accused Munna and Rais were 4-5 yards ahead of him. When Mohd. Yusuf reached near Sultan Rice Mill, the two accused got down from their cycles and started inflicting injuries on Mohd. Yusuf who raised alarm. The witnesses also challenged the accused who after assaulting Mohd. Yusuf ran away towards Sherpur on their cycles. Thereafter, Mohd. Yusuf was taken on rickshaw to Puranpur Hospital. A written F.I.R., as we stated, was lodged by Tufail Ahmad, at 6.10 P.M. on 12.2.1980 resulting in the registering of a case against the two named accused respondents under Section 307, I.P.C. 3. It was PW 6 Dr. Arun Prakash Dixit who had examined the injuries of Mohd. Yusuf in P.H.C. Puranpur on 12.2.1980 at 6 P.M. He found eight incised wounds on his person which were on neck, back of chest, back of abdomen and other parts of the body. Three of them were simple whereas the remaining five were kept under observation. All the injuries had been caused by sharp edged weapon and were fresh. The depth of none of the injuries had been probed by the Doctor as per his evidence delivered before the court. Three of them were simple whereas the remaining five were kept under observation. All the injuries had been caused by sharp edged weapon and were fresh. The depth of none of the injuries had been probed by the Doctor as per his evidence delivered before the court. According to him, they could be caused by knife on 12.2.1980 at about 5.30 P.M. First aid was provided by him to the injured. The injured Mohd. Yusuf was shifted to Mission Hospital Bareilly, where PW 5 Dr. Mohd. Javed Shamsi surgically operated him (leparotomy and splenectomy). 4. The investigation in the case was conducted by S.I. PW 4 Chandra Mani. 5. The accused denied their alleged inter se relationship and also that they were friends. Munna admitted that he was being prosecuted for abduction of the sister of Mohd. Yusuf but contended that it was a false case. Both of them alleged enmity with the witnesses. Rais Ahmad alleged that Lal Mohd. was his maternal uncle whose employee Riyasatullah had earlier prosecuted Mohd. Yusuf for theft. 6. The prosecution examined PW 1 Tufail Ahmad and PW 2 Mohd. Yusuf (injured) as the eyewitnesses besides two Doctors, Head Constable who prepared the chick F.I.R. and registered the case and the Investigating Officer. 7. The trial court recorded acquittal holding that the prosecution failed to establish a common link between the two accused persons; there was enmity between the two accused and the victim; the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out; there was absence of independent witnesses and that testimony of PW 1 Tufail Ahmad and that of PW 2 Mohd. Yusuf injured could not be believed. 8. We have heard Sri B.G. Singh, A.G.A. from the side of the State and Sri R.C. Yadav, counsel for the accused appellants. The record is before us. The submission from the side of the State is that the trial Judge unjustifiably rejected the testimony of eye-witnesses out of whom one was the injured himself. According to the A.G.A., the acquittal is based on faulty appreciation of evidence and is liable to be reversed. The counsel for the accused respondents, per contra, stood by the side of the reasoning adopted by the trial Judge in acquitting the accused respondents. 9. According to the A.G.A., the acquittal is based on faulty appreciation of evidence and is liable to be reversed. The counsel for the accused respondents, per contra, stood by the side of the reasoning adopted by the trial Judge in acquitting the accused respondents. 9. We have waded through the record to cross-check the findings of the trial court and we intend to deal with the relevant aspects of the matter in the light of the arguments of the two sides in succeeding discussion. Two injury reports and the testimony of PW 6 Dr. Arun Prakash Dixit (who initially medically examined the victim) and that of PW 5 Dr. Mohd. Javed Shamsi (who operated the victim) clinchingly established beyond doubt that Mohd. Yusuf had sustained cut weapon injuries on 12.2.1980 as was the prosecution case. PW 6 Dr. Arun Prakash Dixit clearly testified that these injuries could have been caused by knife. 10. Motive is insignificant in a case of direct evidence as is the present one. Still, the prosecution had successfully proved clear motive on the part of Munna accused to commit this crime as it was an admitted fact that he was being prosecuted at the instance of Mohd. Yusuf (injured) for the kidnapping of latter’s sister. Mohd. Yusuf (injured) himself testified it and this fact was admitted to Munna accused also, though he claimed that case to be false. PW 2 Mohd. Yusuf also stated that accused Rais was the brother-in-law of Munna and both of them were fast friends. Of course, he could not connect the relationship between them and Rais accused also denied it. But it has to be kept in mind that the prosecution cannot perform miracles and it is not always possible to adduce clinching evidence as to the common bond between/amongst culprits of a particular crime. The prosecution case could not suffer a setback simply because clear relationship between the two accused could not be established by the prosecution. The truth of the matter was that there was trustworthy evidence of the injured supported by another eye-witness PW 1 Tufail Ahmad that it were they who committed this crime on the given date, time and place. The trial Judge gave undue importance to the motive aspect and interpreted it one-sidedly against the prosecution because of the pending litigation, holding that Mohd. Yusuf could have brought about false accusation against the two accused. The trial Judge gave undue importance to the motive aspect and interpreted it one-sidedly against the prosecution because of the pending litigation, holding that Mohd. Yusuf could have brought about false accusation against the two accused. He acted on surmises in recording this finding. 11. The F.I.R. of this incident was lodged with promptitude by PW 1 Tufail Ahmad (eye-witness). His testimony could not be discarded simply because he was brother-in-law of Mohd. Yusuf. If the witness is related to the victim, he would naturally be interested in ensuring that real culprit is punished and not screened. The evidence of the close relative of the victim cannot be doubted on the ground that his deposition was ‘partisan’. He had well explained his presence at the spot that he had gone to Puranpur to provide food to his brother at 10 or 11 A.M. and was returning back therefrom in the evening. Though he used to sell vegetables but did not do so on that day. According to him, he remained at Puranpur between 11 A.M. and 5.30 A.M. It was at about 5.30 P.M. that he had started back journey from Puranpur to Sherpur. 12. The testimony of the injured PW 2 Mohd. Yusuf himself was very valuable deserving great weight. One of the reasons adopted by the trial Judge for discarding the testimony of injured and of supportive witness PW 1 Tufail Ahmad was that both of them stated that knife injuries were caused by the two accused in stabbing way, whereas as per PW 6 Dr. Arun Prakash Dixit none of the injuries found on the person of the victim was stab wound. PW 1 Tufail Ahmad was also criticised on the premise that he did not know as to which accused was on which side of the victim. It should be pointed out that the witnesses cannot be expected to give account of number of blows etc. struck by the accused on the victim. Some exaggerations as also contradictions in the testimony of truthful eye-witnesses are bound to be there in natural course. When the assault is over within a few minutes, it would be difficult for any witness to state exactly which accused inflicted injury from which side on the victim. It would be against ground reality to expect the witness to depose exactly the manner in which the weapon was wielded by the accused. When the assault is over within a few minutes, it would be difficult for any witness to state exactly which accused inflicted injury from which side on the victim. It would be against ground reality to expect the witness to depose exactly the manner in which the weapon was wielded by the accused. It would be most unnatural to expect exact description of the details of the attack on the victim by each accused. What is material is that the incised wounds sustained by the victim were of sharp edged weapons and could be caused by knives, which according to the prosecution case and evidence, were weapons of offence used by the two accused. The evidence of the witnesses has to be scrutinized in a logical and reasonable way, instead of in a pedantic manner to find fault therewith. On proper appreciation, it is found that the testimony of the two eye-witnesses had the ring of truth, clinchingly establishing that the assailants were the two accused respondents. 13. The absence of other independent witnesses did not have any adverse effect on the prosecution. The evidence is to be judged qualitatively. It has not to be counted. It is everyday’s experience that unconcerned public witnesses do not involve themselves in court proceedings unless it is inevitable. The reason is apparent that they do not want to take any chance of inviting trouble for themselves in future. 14. It may, however, be pointed out that none of the injuries sustained by the victim was dangerous to life. There is no evidence to this effect either that Mohd. Yusuf was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits during the space of 20 days which is the alternative requirement of clause ‘Eightly’ of Section 320, I.P.C. We pointed out earlier that the depth of none of the injuries was probed by PW 6 Dr. Arun Prakash Dixit, though some of them were kept under observation. No further evidence in the form of x-ray etc. was produced before the court. Taking all these factors into consideration, the two accused respondents only committed an offence under Section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. 15. To come to a close, the acquittal recorded by the trial Judge is perverse and illegal being based on superficial approach without proper and judicious analysis of the evidence brought on record. The acquittal is liable to be reversed. To come to a close, the acquittal recorded by the trial Judge is perverse and illegal being based on superficial approach without proper and judicious analysis of the evidence brought on record. The acquittal is liable to be reversed. The two accused respondents committed the offence of Section 324, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and they have to be punished therefor. The record shows that the accused Munna surrendered in the lower court on 29.2.1980 and the other accused Rais on 10.3.1980. Both remained in jail upto 5.8.1980, i.e., for about five months. The ends of justice would be met by sentencing the accused respondents under Section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for the period of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by each of them within two months from the date of this judgment. 16. We allow this Government Appeal and reverse the acquittal of the two accused respondents, namely, Munna and Rais. They are found to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and each of them is convicted thereunder. Each of them is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Each of them shall pay the amount of fine within two months from the date of this order. In case of default of payment of fine, each shall undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit shall ensure compliance of this order and shall submit compliance report to this court within three months. Certify the judgment to the lower court with the transmission of record immediately. Appeal Allowed. ———