K. K. MISRA, J. Both the appeals have been preferred by the State against acquittal of the accused persons under sections 307/34 I. P. C. and for enhancement of the sentences, arising out of the judgment and order dated 9. 1. 1981 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in S. T. No. 177 of 1980, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under section 307/34 I. P. C. but have been convicted under sections 323/34 and 324/34 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo six months R. I. on three counts and one years R. I. on two counts respectively. Since both the appeals are directed against the same judgment and order, they are being disposed of together by a common order. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Prem Narayan (P. W. I) and the accused Ram Bali, Gunnu and Ram Dayal are residents of Village and Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. Accused Ram Bali and Gunnu are real brothers and accused Ram Dayal is their maternal uncle. The house of complainant and accused Ram Bali and Gunnu lie in front of each other and a passage intervened between the two. There was well of the complainant, besides which the said passage lies. After the passage there was charni and cattle pegs of accused Ram Bali. The accused persons had blocked the said passage by putting a log. 3. On 20. 3. 1979 at about 7. 00 p. m. when the complainant Prem Narayan and his cousin Santosh Kumar were returning back to their home in a bullock-cart from their khalihan, they removed the said log for passing the bullock-cart, upon which quarrel ensued. Accused Ram Bali and Ram Dayal armed with gendasa and Gunnu armed with lathi started assaulting Prem Narayan and Santosh Kumar. Real brother of the complainant, namely, Ram Chander rushed for their rescue, but he too was beaten by the accused persons. On the alarm being raised, Nand Lal, Devidin, Raja Ram and several other villagers reached the spot and tried to intervene. Thereafter the accused persons fled away after causing injuries with their respective weapons. The complainant Prem Narayan lodged a written report Ext. Ka-1 at P. S. Makhi, which lies at a distance of about 1 Km. from the place of occurrence, on 20. 3. 1979 at 7. Thereafter the accused persons fled away after causing injuries with their respective weapons. The complainant Prem Narayan lodged a written report Ext. Ka-1 at P. S. Makhi, which lies at a distance of about 1 Km. from the place of occurrence, on 20. 3. 1979 at 7. 45 p. m. , on the basis of which, check F. I. R. Ext. Ka-2 was prepared and a case was registered in the general diary, copy of which is Ext. Ka-3. The injured persons were medically examined by Dr. D. N. Srivastava P. W. 6 in the same night, who prepared their injury reports Ext. Ka-8 to Ka-10. After completing usual investigation S. I. Raj Dutt Tripathi P. W. 5 submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as six witnesses in all and out of them PW. 1 Prem Narayan, the complainant, PW. 2 Rajaram and PW. 3 Ram Chander, brother of the complainant are the witnesses of fact and rest are formal ones. Out of the three eye-witnesses, PW. l Prem Narayan and PW. 3 Ram Chander are injured witnesses. 5. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C, wherein they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They denied the charges framed against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 6. After considering the entire material on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt, but instead of sentencing the accused persons under section 307/34 I. P. C. it convicted and sentenced them under sections 323 and 324 read with section 34 I. P. C. , but instead of sending them to Jail, they were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for one year on entering into a bond with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the Probation Officer concerned. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the State has preferred criminal appeal No. 578 of 1981 against acquittal under section 307 I. P. C. and criminal appeal No. 579 of 1981 for enhancement of the sentences. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the State as well as the respondents and perused the entire material on record carefully. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the State has preferred criminal appeal No. 578 of 1981 against acquittal under section 307 I. P. C. and criminal appeal No. 579 of 1981 for enhancement of the sentences. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the State as well as the respondents and perused the entire material on record carefully. 9. In the instant appeals, it has been argued that the case falls within the ambit of section 307 I. P. C. but the Trial Court proceeded on presumption that the case is covered by section 324 I. P. C. To substantiate his contention the learned A. G. A. has placed the injury reports before us which read as under:- Santosh Kumar Lacerated wound 5 cm. x 1/3 cm. x scalp deep on Rt. side of head, 11 cm above the right ear. Wound is fresh, clotted blood and bleeding stopped. Injury is simple, caused by blunt weapon, fresh in duration. Ram Chandra 1. Incised wound 2-1/4 cm x 1/4 cm x 1/3 cm deep on the right side of base of neck. The margins are clear-cut and ends are tapering. Wound fresh, clotted blood and some bleeding present. 2. Contused swelling 3 cm x 2 cm on front of right knee. All injuries are simple, No. 1 caused by sharp edged weapon, No. 2 by blunt weapon and fresh in duration. Prem Narayna 1. Incised wound 11 cm. x 1-1/2 x bone deep semi circular in shape 3 cm above Rt. ear, cutting of upper part of Rt. ear through and through, bleeding from wound is present. 2. Contusion 4 cm. x 1-1/2 cm. on the front of Lt. wrist joint. Note:-Patient is conscious, general condition low, SDM informed for dying declaration. Injury No. 1 is kept under observation, advised X-ray, caused by sharp edged weapon, No. 2 by blunt weapon. All injuries fresh in duration. On X-ray, no bony injury was detected in the skull region. 10. In this case, the statement of the doctor was recorded. According to him, the injuries were simple in nature, not grievous and dangerous to life. Even the X-ray report of Prem Narain shows no bony injury in the skull region. All injuries fresh in duration. On X-ray, no bony injury was detected in the skull region. 10. In this case, the statement of the doctor was recorded. According to him, the injuries were simple in nature, not grievous and dangerous to life. Even the X-ray report of Prem Narain shows no bony injury in the skull region. No material has been placed before us to discredit the testimony of the doctor and further no text-book has been produced to show that the injury which is simple in nature is dangerous and fatal to life. Consequently, we do not find any justification to interfere with the view taken by the Trial Court, which is based on the statement of the doctor who examined the injured. There is nothing available on record to suggest that the Court should form a different view in this matter and discard the expert opinion by substituting its own opinion. The injuries are simple in nature and are covered by section 324 I. P. C. Accordingly no interference is called for. 11. It is strange to note that the injuries, which are simple in nature are neither grievous nor dangerous to life, how can be perceived to be fatal as set up by the learned A. G. A. There was sufficient opportunity for the appellant to cross-examine the doctor on the point that the case under section 307 is made out, but no effort was made. It is relevant to mention that the quarrel took place at the spur of moment on petty matter on account of blockage of the passage, from which with no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that there Was any intention to commit murder or to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Consequently, at this belated stage the finding cannot be challenged on the ground that the case under section 307 I. P. C. appears to be made out because the injuries could not reflect that the case is covered by section 326 or 307 I. P. C. and the view taken by the Trial Court is not erroneous. In any way, the trial is not vitiated by any illegality or irregularity committed by the Trial Court. Thus, the question of enhancement of sentence does not arise as the case under section 324 I. P. C. is clearly made out. 12. In any way, the trial is not vitiated by any illegality or irregularity committed by the Trial Court. Thus, the question of enhancement of sentence does not arise as the case under section 324 I. P. C. is clearly made out. 12. In the light of the evidence available on record, we find that the view taken by the Trial Court is neither perverse nor there is any illegality or impropriety in it. The view cannot be said to be erroneous and the appraisal of evidence requires no interference. Consequently, there is no compelling reason to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court against acquittal. 13. Having regard to the rival submissions of the parties, in the light of the judgment of Honble Apex Court as to the manner of appreciation of evidence in a case of acquittal, we find that guidelines have been given for adherence. We would like to quote the views of the Honble Apex Court in Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1974 SC 286 ), wherein their Lordships held as under:- " The appellate Court has power to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion in an appeal against acquittal. In exercising this power the Appellate Court, should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of its order of acquittal but it must express its reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. The Appellate Court must bear in mind the fact that the Trial Court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal. Therefore, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the Trial Court. " 14. Therefore, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the Trial Court. " 14. In this context Honble Apex Court in the case of Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2002 (44) ACC 778 (SC)) has further observed as under:- " In criminal case the golden thread running through the web of administration of justice is that if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, on pointing to the guilt of accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to accused should be adopted. It is not a jurisdictional limitation on Appellate Court. In an appeal filed against acquittal of accused the paramount consideration of the Court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the Trial Court has taken a view based on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the Trial Court, which may not be disturbed in the appeal, is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. " 15. The State has also preferred Criminal Appeal No. 579 of 1981 for enhancement of the sentences. The A. G. A. has failed to point out any circumstances under which the sentences should be enhanced, he failed to point out any circumstance before us. We further find that the incident took place on 20. 3. 1979 and since then the respondents are facing miseries and they have become very feeble and infirm persons. Consequently, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned A. G. A. that the State appeal should be allowed and the sentences should be enhanced. 16. On the point of sentence, we find that the learned Trial Court has taken a seasoned view in the matter of awarding sentence. There is nothing on record to suggest that they are previous convicts or have caused injuries in deliberation. This is not a case of disfiguration of face also. 16. On the point of sentence, we find that the learned Trial Court has taken a seasoned view in the matter of awarding sentence. There is nothing on record to suggest that they are previous convicts or have caused injuries in deliberation. This is not a case of disfiguration of face also. Consequently, the view taken by the Trial Court appears to be reasonable and no in terference is warranted. 17. Accordingly, looking to the case from all or any angle, we decline to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court on the point of sentence and it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to enhance the sentences after a lapse of more than 28 years of the incident. Thus, in the surrounding circumstances both the State appeals on the point of acquittal and enhancement of sentences are devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed. Appeals Dismissed. .