JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - This appeal by the State is directed against an order of acquittal of the Respondents recorded by Learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1987 (S.C. No. 116 of 1987 of GDC). 2. The prosecution case sans details is that on 11.12.1986 at about 6.30 P.M. while informant-(P.W.1) and his brother D. Somanath-(P.W.2) were coming with their bullock cart loaded with paddy sheeves, Respondent K. Debaraja assaulted informant Santosh Kumar with KHANATI (a digging iron instrument fitted with a wooden handle) causing injuries on the latter's hands and hearing the shout of agony of P.W. 1 when P.W. 2 went to the rear side of the bullock cart, Respondent Debaraja shouting that he would kill him, dealt a blow with the KHANATI on the head of the P.W. 2 causing bleeding injury. P.W. 2 became unconscious and collapsed to the ground where after Respondent No. 2-Bhagirathi Gauda dealt lathi blows on the back of P.W. 2. Some persons who were present near by intervened and removed P.W. 2 to Kukudakhandi P.H.C. where P.W. 2 was examined, admitted and treated from 11.12.1986 to 24.12.1986. Immediately after the incident P.W. 1 lodged the F.I.R. in Hinjili Police Station and basing on that report investigation was conducted and charge sheet was submitted for offence under Sections 307/ 34, Indian Penal Code. The Respondents took a plea of denial and false implication due to previous enmity. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and produced documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 6. The weapon of offence, blood stained earth from the spot and blood stained napkin of P.W. 2 were marked as M. Os. I to III. The Respondents did not produce any witness, document or material object. On consideration of all the materials on record Learned Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal with the observation that the evidence of the prosecution were inconsistent, improper and unreliable. Against the said order the State has filed the present appeal., 4. Challenging the judgment of the Trial Court, Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel submits that the approach of the Learned Trial Court to the evidence on record is perfunctory and perverse. Against the said order the State has filed the present appeal., 4. Challenging the judgment of the Trial Court, Mr. A.K. Mishra, Learned Standing Counsel submits that the approach of the Learned Trial Court to the evidence on record is perfunctory and perverse. According to him, the evidence on record squarely establish the case against Respondents if not u/s 307 of the I.P.C. at least for offence 326 of the I.P.C. In support of his contention Mr. Mishra places the relevant portion of the statement of the witnesses as well as the medical evidence. 5. Mr. D.R. Sundararay, appearing on behalf of Mr. S.D. Das, Learned Senior Counsel, supporting the impugned judgment contends that the statements of P. Ws 1 & 2 and the eye witnesses being inconsistent were not reliable and the Trial Court did not commit any error in discarding those evidences. He submits that an order of acquittal should not be disturbed unless there is total perversity in the approach of the Trial Court or the conclusions are based on no evidence. He also submits that in a case which is 18 years old the Appellate Court should be reluctant to reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. Mr. Sundararay relies on the ratio of the cases of Ayodhya Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2005(1) Supreme 957 ; Chakradhar Bhutia Vs. Bankim Mohanty, and State v. Banambar Samal (2006) 34 OCR 804 in support of his contention. 6. P. Ws 1 & 2 are the injured persons. P. Ws. 3, 4, 6 & 8 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P. Ws. 5 & 7 are seizure witnesses. P.W. 9 is the doctor, who examined P. Ws. 1 & 2 and submitted injury reports and P.W. 10 is the Police Officer, who conducted the investigation. According to P.W. 1, while he and his brother P.W. 2 were coming with paddy sheeves on their bullock cart on 11.12.1986, the Respondents came and tried to twist the direction of the bullock cart and when he went to the back side of the cart to see who was creating the mischief, Respondent Debaraja dealt two blows with the KHANATI causing injury on each of his hands. He also stated that when P.W. 2 went to the back side of the cart hearing his shout, Respondent-Debaraja dealt a blow with KHANATI on the head of P.W. 2 causing bleeding injury and after P.W. 2 collapsed to the ground Respondent No. 2-Bhagirath dealt two blows with a lathi on the waist of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 also stated that when he went to the back side of the cart hearing the shout of P.W. 1 Debaraja dealt a blow of KHANATI on his head and he collapsed to the ground unconscious. P.W. 2 stated that he regained his senses in Kukudakhandi P.H.C.P. Ws. 3, 4, 6 & 8 stated that they were available near the spot at the time of occurrence and hearing the halla they came to the spot to find Respondent-K. Debaraja dealing a KHANATI blow on the left side of the forehead of P.W. 2 causing bleeding injury. According to them, after P.W. 2 fell down Bhagirathi also dealt blows with a lathi on him. Doctor P.W. 9 stated that he examined P.W. 1 and found one bruise on the left, waist joint and one abrasion on the dorson of right hand and he also examined P.W. 2 and found one lacerated bleeding injury over the left side of his scalp. According to the doctor, the injuries were possible with blunt weapon like KHANATI. His reports are Exts. 5 & 6 respectively. The I.O. stated that during course of investigation he seized a KHANATI, some blood stained earth from the spot and blood stained cloth of P.W. 2 in presence of witnesses under seizure list Exts., 2, 3 & 4 respectively. These items were also produced in Court and were marked as M. Os. I to III.P. Ws. 5 & 7 supported the fact of seizure of the above noted articles. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents claims that the evidence of P. Ws 1 & 2 and that of the eye witnesses are not reliable as there are glaring contradictions in their evidence and their narration of the occurrence appears inherently improbable. It is submitted that when there is enmity between the parties such defects could not have been ignored and evidence of the P. Ws. could not have been accepted at their face value. It is submitted that when there is enmity between the parties such defects could not have been ignored and evidence of the P. Ws. could not have been accepted at their face value. Law is settled that when the parties in hostile terms, the evidence has to be scrutinized with great care and caution and unless the evidence are found totally reliable, they should not be believed or acted upon. In the present case P.W. 1 claimed in his statement that Debaraja dealt two blows with KHANATI on his hands causing injuries, but he did not mention about the injuries in the F.I.R. The eye witnesses no doubt spoke about the blow on P.W. 2, but they did not claim to have seen the KHANATI blows being dealt by Respondent No. 1 on the person of P.W. 1. The doctor's report shows that there was a bruise of size 1/2" x 1/2" on the left wrist and an abrasion, 1/4" x 1/4" on dorson of the right hand. Such simple and minor injuries are possible by accidental rubbing with any hard rought object as well as by self infliction. Blows with heavy weapon like Khanati is not likely to cause such trival and minor injuries. So there was good reason for Learned Trial Court to disbelieve that allegation of assault by the Respondents on P.W. 1. 8. So far as the role of Bhagirathi Gauda is concerned, the victims as well as the eye witnesses have not given consistent statements. While P.W. 1 says that Bhagirathi dealt two lathi blows on P. Ws. 2. P. Ws.2 has not stated anything about the lathi blows of Bhagirathi. P.W. 3 stated that Bhagirathi dealt two lathi blows on the waist of P.W. 2 whereas P.W. 4 stated that Bhagirathi dealt one lathi blow on the waist. P.W. 6 stated that Bhagirathi dealt two lathi blows on the waist of P.W. 2, where as P.W. 8 stated that Bhagirathi dealt one lathi blow on the waist and another lathi blow on the leg of P.W. 2 Besides the above inconsistent statements Doctor-P.W.9 does not say that he noticed any mark of assault on the waist or leg of P.W. 2. Such being the evidence, there was also good reason for Learned Trial Court to disbelieve the alleged role of Bhagirathi in the incident. 9. It is, however, noticed that P. Ws. Such being the evidence, there was also good reason for Learned Trial Court to disbelieve the alleged role of Bhagirathi in the incident. 9. It is, however, noticed that P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 8 all categorically stated that Debaraja dealt a blow with his Khanati on the head of P.W. 2 causing bleeding injury. The doctor P.W. 9 also stated that on examination he found a lacerated injury on the left side scalp of p.w.2 and that the injury is possible with weapon like Khanati. The I.O. and the seizure witnesses reinforce the statement of above noted witnesses by saying that blood was there on the ground at the spot and the napkin of P.W. 2 was also stained with blood. There is virtually no inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses about the Khanati blow on the head of P.W. 2 by Respondent-Debaraja. Learned Trial Judge made an observation that the medical reports were manipulated by the brother of P.W. 1 who was working as a Health Inspector. This observation appears out of place and imaginary as there is no evidence on record to show that the said brother, who works as Health Inspector any way manipulated the injury report or medical documents. So the conclusion of Learned Trial Court that there is lack of evidence to prove that Respondent Debaraja death Khanati blow on the head of P.W. 2 appears contrary to the materials on record. No doubt in the cases of Ayodhya Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) and State v. Banambar Samal (supra) it is indicated that if on evidence two views are reasonably possible the Appellate Court is not to interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that an alternative view is possible on the evidence on record, but the said principle is not applicable to the present case as the evidence on record univocally point at the involvement of Respondent Debaraja with the injury on the head of P.W. 2 and on this issue two reasonable views are not available or possible from the evidence on record. 10. Now the next question is whether the infliction of injury on the head of the P.W. 2 would amount to an offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. 10. Now the next question is whether the infliction of injury on the head of the P.W. 2 would amount to an offence u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. According to the narration of P. Ws 1 and 2, there was previous enmity between the parties and because of that ill-feeling, Debaraja carried the attack on them. The very fact that Debaraja dealt only one blow which resulted in a lacerated injury simple in nature suggests that the intention was not to cause death, but to cause injury to the victim. The opinion of the doctor that the injury was simple in nature and the fact that P.W. 2 was treated as Indoor patient for less than 20 days further indicate that the injury was not grevious in nature. However, since the weapon used is a weapon likely to cause death, the offence would come within the purview of Section 324, Indian Penal Code. So from the evidence on record offence u/s 324, Indian Penal Code is established against the Respondent Debaraja. 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondents relying on the case of Chakradhar Bhutia v. Bankim Mohanty, (supra) submits that interfering with the order of acquittal after 17 or 18 years will be a travesty of justice. The said appeal arose out of a complaint case and the Appellant was not interested and did not appear for which a remark was passed that reopening of the matter and interfering with the order of acquittal would be a travesty of justice. That observation was made in a specific circumstances and cannot be accepted as universal ratio. After the above noted analysis I am of the considered view that the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the Respondent Bhagirathi Gauda is sustainable, but the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the Respondent K. Debaraja is unsustainable as there are clinching evidence to establish commission of offence u/s 324, Indian Penal Code by Respondent-K. Debaraja. Accordingly, I hold K. Debaraja guilty u/s 324, Indian Penal Code, and convict him thereunder. It appears from the record of G.R. Case No. 723 of 1986 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Chatrapur that accused-K. Debaraja had remained in custody for more than a fortnight. After all these years it will not be proper to again send him to jail custody. It appears from the record of G.R. Case No. 723 of 1986 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Chatrapur that accused-K. Debaraja had remained in custody for more than a fortnight. After all these years it will not be proper to again send him to jail custody. So, he is sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone in jail custody and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which to undergo R.I for a period of 15 days. 12. The Appeal is thus partly allowed. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed