Judgment Borkar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.12.1991 by learned Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.26 of 1991, whereby present Respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that, PW-2 Deda Reda Pawara, resident of village Lakadya Hanuman, Taluka Shirpur, is the original complainant. Deceased Popat was his son. Popat was about 13 years of age at the time of alleged incident. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who were original accused Nos.1 and 2, were resident of Fattepur, whereas, Respondent No.3, who is original accused No.3, was resident of Nawapada. Respondent No.3 shifted to Nawapada, 2-1/2 to 3 months prior to the incident. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 7.12.1990, at about 8.00 a.m., deceased Popat had taken cattle for grazing in Fattepur jungle. His parents also left house for work and they returned at about 5 to 6 p.m. After sometime, only she - buffalos returned. Popat did not return home and, therefore, PW-2 Deda Pawara and others searched for Popat but he was not found till 10.00 p.m. On 8.12.1990 at about 7.00 a.m., complainant Deda and others again went in search of Popat in the jungle and at about 8.00 a.m., they found dead body of Popat on the boundary bund of the field of one Navlya Kadba. The body was covered with Palas leaves and shrubs of Bori. Popat had injuries on person, including head injury. Two wooden logs (Dengara) were lying nearby the dead body of Popat. Thereafter, PW-2 Deda Pawara lodged a complaint at the Police Station. He stated that he was suspecting present respondents, (who are the original accused) as the culprits. The motive for murder of Popat given was that a calf of one Nana Kutrya had entered the forest and forest watchman Chagan pelted stones towards the calf and the calf was injured. The matter was taken to panchayat and PW-2 Deda Pawara was one of the panchas. Panchayat directed that Chagan should give another calf and Rs.100/= to Nana Kutrya. The matter was taken to panchayat and PW-2 Deda Pawara was one of the panchas. Panchayat directed that Chagan should give another calf and Rs.100/= to Nana Kutrya. Accused No. 3 is the son-in-law of Nana Kutrya and he insisted that besides another calf, Rs.1000/= be paid as compensation, but the panchas did not oblige and, therefore, Respondent-accused No.3 Reshma, in presence of all persons, said that he would not tolerate such things and threatened that he would do away complainant Deda Pawara and his son. This incident took place 3-4 months prior to the incident of murder. After the complaint was lodged, crime was registered. Shri Sonawane, PSI of Shirpur Police Station, took over investigation. He sent for a dog squad. He went to the spot and saw the dead body. He drew spot panchanama (Exh.22), sent the dead body for autopsy. After dog squad arrived, smell of one of the wooden logs was given to the sniffer dog and it is the case of the prosecution that the dog thereafter led the police and panchas to the house of accused No.1, where his wife was present. Thereafter all the three respondents were arrested. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 showed willingness to point out place of offence and accordingly, they led the police and the panchas to the place of offence. Panchanama (Exh.33) was drawn. In the meantime, post mortem report (Exh.10) was received. Muddemal articles were sent to Chemical Analyser and the C.A. report (Exh.16) was received. 4. The main evidence against the Respondents is that of eye witness Rama Pawara (PW-9). Now, it is well settled that evidence of dog master Vilas Kelekar (PW-6), or panch is not of much help to the prosecution, as the evidence of sniffer dog cannot be relied upon as credible evidence, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rajax Murtaja Dafedar v. State of Maharashtra 1969 (2) SCC 234 and Gade Lakshmi Mangaraju @ Ramesh vs. State of A.P. 2001 (6) SCC 205 . So far as discovery of place of incident by Respondents No. 1 and 2 is concerned, the spot was already known to police and also to the complainant and there was, therefore, no discovery as such and hence, the panchanama has no evidencial value. 5. So far as discovery of place of incident by Respondents No. 1 and 2 is concerned, the spot was already known to police and also to the complainant and there was, therefore, no discovery as such and hence, the panchanama has no evidencial value. 5. Learned Addl.P.P. Shri K.B.Chaudhary vehemently submitted that the evidence of PW-9 Rama ought to have been believed by the trial court and that the said evidence was rejected on sole ground that police recorded his statement 5-6 days after the incident, which is not the fact. Statement of PW-9 was recorded on 9.12.1990 i.e. on the next day of lodging the complaint and, therefore, there was no delay. 06. It may be noted that the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of eye witness Rama Pawara (PW-9) on another count also, i.e. according to Rama, only two blows with a wooden log were given to deceased Popat, whereas Dr.Agrawal (PW-7) at Exh.31 has stated that injuries mentioned in post mortem notes, would be possible by 5-6 strokes of Dengra (wooden log). Before we go to the evidence of Rama Pawara, it may be mentioned here that as per the evidence of Dr.Agrawal, he noted following five external injuries in column No.17 of the post mortem notes (Exh.32). (i). Abrasions over right fore-arm, lower, 1/3, 6 cm x 2 cm. (ii). Abrasion over left Scapula region, 5 cm x 2 cm. (iii). Contusion over posterior aspect of neck, 4 cm x 2 cm. (iv). Abrasion over left leg,lower, 1/3 4 cm x 2 cm. (v). Abrasion over public region and penis, 3 cm x 1 cm. In column No.18, he noted fracture of skull bones on both sides. Internal and external injuries were ante-mortem. In column 19, he noted internal injuries. They were multiple fractures on the left fronto parieto temporal region, four in number. Fracture on right parietal region. Fracture on occipital region, two in number. There was hematoma under scalp on left side. Surprisingly, there was no corresponding external injury to various frachers of skull. According to Dr.Agrawal, cause of death was "shock due to intrecranial haemorrhage following multiple fracture of skull bones". 7. PW-9 Rama Pawara, who is said to be an eye witness, has stated that he had gone to cut grass on the boundary of the field of Surjya Maleya in the morning of the day of incident, which was Friday. According to Dr.Agrawal, cause of death was "shock due to intrecranial haemorrhage following multiple fracture of skull bones". 7. PW-9 Rama Pawara, who is said to be an eye witness, has stated that he had gone to cut grass on the boundary of the field of Surjya Maleya in the morning of the day of incident, which was Friday. At that time, he heard some noise from the land of Navlya Kadba. He, therefore, looked towards that side and saw Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the field of Navlya Kadba. Popat was also there. Respondent No.1 was armed with wooden dengara and he gave two blows with the said weapon on the head of Popat, as a result Popat fell down. Thereafter Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 lifted Popat and put him on the bandh/boundary of the field of Navlya Kadba. Thorny bushes were put on the body of Popat. Thereafter witness Rama, being afraid, ran away. The incident took place at about 10.00 a.m. Witness has stated that out of fear, he did not disclose the incident to anybody in the village. In the cross examination, PW-9 Rama said that his attention was drawn, because he heard noise of speaking. But, later on he said that he was far away from the place where Popat and Respondents were present and he could not hear their conversation. Then he stated that they were speaking loudly. The incident was going on for 1-1/2 to 2 hours. Even if one makes some concession, as the witness is a tribal, who may not have time sense, yet his conduct is also worth considering. He did not intervene to rescue Popat. Assuming that, he was afraid of Respondents, still he should have approached father of the victim to inform him the incident. However witness kept quiet. According to his own admission, he did not inform the incident to anybody, until his statement was recorded by police. The question is how police came to know that he is an eye witness. Then witness Rama admitted that police recorded his statement five-six days after the incident. It is true that there is a statement recorded in his name on 9.12.1990. 8. PW-9 Rama further denied that there were two factions in the village, one of Redha and another that of accused No.3. Then witness Rama admitted that police recorded his statement five-six days after the incident. It is true that there is a statement recorded in his name on 9.12.1990. 8. PW-9 Rama further denied that there were two factions in the village, one of Redha and another that of accused No.3. He admitted that Respondent-accused No.3 had contested gram panchayat election against Redha and was elected. It was suggested to him that he belonged to the party of Redhya and that he was falsely deposing at the instance of Redha. 9. PW-2 Deda Pawara, the complainant, admitted in his cross examination that Respondent No. 3 contested the election of Gram panchayat from Lakdya Hanuman constituency and he was of opposite party. He further admitted that he himself and Ramsing were of one party. After the election, they were on cross terms with Respondent No.3. He further stated that the dead body of Popat was found in jwar crop, which is not the fact, according to spot panchanama (Exh.22). The complainant further admitted in paragraph 7 of his cross examination as follows:- "I implicated accused Nos. 1 to 3 in this case, as accused persons, because they are in cross terms with me and nobody from my village except accused Nos. 1 to 3, are in cross terms with me." . The complainant has also stated about motive, which is referred to earlier. It is difficult to believe that such could a motive for committing murder of Popat. It may be noted that, the calf which was injured, did not belong to any of the Respondents. It belonged to father-in-law of Respondent No.3. It is not clear as to how Respondent no. 3 would have been benefited, if in stead of Rs.100/=, Rs.1000/= had been paid as compensation. It is nowhere said that Nana Kutrya, whose calf was injured, had any grievance in accepting a calf and Rs.100/=. On the other hand, in paragraph 5 of the evidence of complainant at Exh. 19, it has come that besides the complainant, Apla Mirya, Sukla Javrya, Vasant Bhagwan, Police Patil, Budha Redha and Reshma Rama were the panchas. So it was not a decision of the complainant alone. Nana Kutrya had said that he would be bound by the resolution of the panchas. It is, therefore, very difficult to believe that such could be a motive sufficient to cause death of Popat. So it was not a decision of the complainant alone. Nana Kutrya had said that he would be bound by the resolution of the panchas. It is, therefore, very difficult to believe that such could be a motive sufficient to cause death of Popat. The evidence of PW-9 Rama discloses that he had witnessed entire evidence. If that is so, no role is attributed by him to Respondent No.3, in giving blows to Popat. He stated about two blows given on head. So, other injuries on the person of Popat are not explained. To that extent, ocular evidence is discrepant with the medical evidence. Ocular evidence does not explain all injuries caused to Popat. 10. So far as evidence of PW-6 Vilas Kelekar, the dog master, is concerned, all that he said is that after smell of a wooden dengara was given to sniffer dog, it took them to a house which was in a dilapidated condition. At the most, this would lead to a conclusion that, assailant, whoever he might have been, had occasion to go to that house. No other inference can be drawn. So this cannot be a link connecting the accused with the crime. 11. In view of above said discussion, in our opinion, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, is result of a reasonable and possible view, requiring no interference at our hands. 12. Hence, the appeal against acquittal stands dismissed. Mrs.Bharati Gunjal was appointed as Advocate to defend the appeal on behalf of Respondents. We quantify her professional charges at Rs. 2000/-. Appeal dismissed.