JUDGMENT MANJULA CHELLUR, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C. No. 51/08 acquitting the respondent-accused of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under: At about 8.15 p.m. on 31.1.2008 between Byrapurahatty Village and Molakalmuru road near the lands of one B.T. Srinivasa and Majeeb Sab, where the deceased Rangappa was waiting, the accused came from Byrapurahatty Village towards Molakalmuru on a bicycle and on seeing the deceased Rangappa, the accused in the back ground of previous enmity, with an intention to commit murder of said Rangappa, assaulted him with weed remover on the abdomen and on the left side of the ribs of Rangappa, as a result said Rangappa sustained severe injuries and thereafter, the accused went away from the place. At about 8.30 p.m. P.W. 1-Chittaiah, a distant relative of injured Rangappa while returning to his house came on the way and saw Rangappa lying on the road. On enquiry, injured Rangappa informed P.W. 1 that about 10 to 15 minutes earlier the accused stabbed him on his abdomen and ran away from the spot. Immediately, P.W. 1. came to Byrapurahatty Village and informed wife, son and daughter-in-law of said Rangappa about the incident, came back to the place where Rangappa was lying alongwith them and shifted the injured to Molakalmur Hospital in Auto rikshaw where Rangappa died at about 9.30 p.m. Thereafter, P.W. 1 lodged a complaint as per Ex. P1 based on which case came to be registered and thereafter investigation was taken up. During investigation, the Investigating Officer held inquest over the dead body and subjected the dead body to post-mortem examination. P.W. 11-Dr. Padmavathi who conducted post-mortem examination and submitted post-mortem report as per Ex. P8, opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to the vital organs, namely, liver, spleen, lungs and intestines. During investigation, the accused was apprehended and at his instance, the weed remover said to have been used in the commission of the offence was recovered as per M.O. 7 and after completing investigation, charge-sheet came to be laid. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. During investigation, the accused was apprehended and at his instance, the weed remover said to have been used in the commission of the offence was recovered as per M.O. 7 and after completing investigation, charge-sheet came to be laid. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined 21 witnesses, relied on documentary evidence marked as Exs. P1 to P20 and M.Os. 1 to 8. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication. 4. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides and on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, by the judgment under appeal, held that though the prosecution has proved that the death of Rangappa was homicidal, it has failed to prove that the accused was responsible for the homicidal death of Rangappa. In that view of the matter, the accused was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal seeking leave of this Court to present the appeal. 5. We have heard Sri Srinivasa Reddy, learned Government Advocate, closely scrutinized the records received from the Court below and perused the judgment under appeal. 6. On careful perusal of the record, reading of the judgment under appeal and on hearing the learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-State, we are of the opinion that there are no grounds to entertain this appeal as such, there is no ground to grant leave to prefer this appeal. 7. Of course from the evidence of P.W. 11-Dr.Padmavathi, it is clearly established that on 31.1.2008 she conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Rangappa between 12.30 p.m. and 1.30 p.m. and noticed several internal and external injuries and was of the opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to the vital organs like liver, spleen, lungs and intestines. There is no serious cross-examination to P.W. 11 in this regard. Thus the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 8. As noticed supra, the criminal law was set on motion by complaint lodged by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P1. There is no serious cross-examination to P.W. 11 in this regard. Thus the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. 8. As noticed supra, the criminal law was set on motion by complaint lodged by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P1. According to the contents of Ex. P1 and the evidence of P.W. 1 who is an Advocate by profession, at about 8.30 p.m. on 31.1.2008 after attending his law chamber when he was walking on Byrapurahatty Village road, he saw Rangappa lying on the road with injuries and when he enquired Rangappa he disclosed that the accused inflicted stab injury with a knife. Immediately, P.W. 1 ran to the house of Rangappa, informed the same to his wife, son and daughter-in-law, alongwith them came back to scene of occurrence and shifted the injured to the hospital where injured Rangappa succumbed to the injuries. Thus according to the prosecution and evidence of this witness, the deceased made an oral dying declaration before this witness with regard to the incident and based on such oral dying declaration made by the deceased, P.W. 1 said to have lodged the complaint-Ex. P1. However according to the prosecution, during investigation it was revealed that P.W. 18-Chittappa was an eye-witness to the incident as it was revealed that on the date of the incident this witness P.W. 18 and deceased Rangappa were proceeding together towards Byrapurahatty Village and at that time the deceased who came on a bicycle keeping a weed remover on his cycle, dashed against the accused with bicycle and thereafter the accused quarrelled with Rangappa, stabbed Rangappa with weed remover and then ran away from the place. Thus the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused relied upon direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. 9. P.W. 18-Chittappa in his evidence before the Court no doubt supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the testimony of this witness for the reason that the fact of this witness having accompanied deceased Rangappa and he having witnessed the incident of stabbing on the deceased by the accused, had not been disclosed by injured Rangappa to P.W. 1 when he said to have made oral dying declaration. The other reason assigned by the learned Sessions Judge is about the conduct of P.W. 18 in not disclosing his having witnessed this incident for nearly about 2½ months to any one, as according to the prosecution, it is only on 13.3.2008, this witness made a statement before the Investigating Officer for the first time and on that basis, it was revealed that he was an eye-witness to the incident. 10. We have perused the evidence of P.W. 18. Though according to the evidence of P.W. 18, at the time of incident, he was accompanying the deceased, as such he witnessed the incident of assault on the deceased, he did not disclose the same to anyone. It is not his say that he disclosed the said fact to the Investigating Officer. Cross-examination of P.W. 18 would indicate that he was very much In the village when the police came to the scene of occurrence. In spite of the same, he did not disclose the said fact. Reading of evidence of P.W. 20-Thimmappa, Circle Inspector of Police who is the Investigating Officer in this case would not indicate as to whether he really recorded the statement of this witness. Therefore, the conduct on the part of this witness P.W. 18 in not disclosing the fact that he had accompanied the deceased and he witnessed the incident of assault on the deceased immediately after the incident or within the reasonable time thereafter, has been rightly viewed seriously by the learned Sessions Judge to discredit his testimony. This conduct on the part of P.W. 18 has rendered his testimony highly unreliable. In addition to this, even according to P.W. 1 when injured Rangappa said to have disclosed as to who inflicted injuries to him, nothing was mentioned by the injured about the presence of P.W. 18 alongwith the deceased. If really P.W. 18 had accompanied the deceased and he was very much present at the scene of occurrence and had witnessed the incident, injured Rangappa would not have omitted to mention the said fact to P.W. 1. Therefore, as rightly viewed by the learned Sessions Judge, the presence of P.W. 18 at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful as such the learned Sessions Judge is justified in not placing reliance on the testimony of P.W. 18. Thus the direct evidence relied on by the prosecution was not a reliable and acceptable one. Therefore, as rightly viewed by the learned Sessions Judge, the presence of P.W. 18 at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful as such the learned Sessions Judge is justified in not placing reliance on the testimony of P.W. 18. Thus the direct evidence relied on by the prosecution was not a reliable and acceptable one. 11. The circumstantial evidence placed on record by the prosecution is the alleged oral dying declaration said to have been made by the deceased to P.W. 1. The learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 1 on the ground that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured, it is highly difficult to believe that he was in a position to speak to P.W. 1 who said to have gone to the scene of occurrence. According to the evidence of P.W. 11, the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Rangappa, there were severe stab injuries on the chest and also on the ribs in the intra costal region and vital internal, organs like liver, spleen, intestine had been injured. The prosecution has not examined the doctor who said to have examined injured Rangappa in the hospital when he was brought there first to establish as to whether the injured was in a position to speak. Therefore, in the light of the medical evidence having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased Rangappa, the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, is justified in holding that the deceased was not in a position to speak and hence the evidence of P.W. 1 that deceased Rangappa disclosed to him that the accused stabbed him, cannot be relied upon. 12. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is recovery of weapon of offence marked as M.O. 7. Though in the examination-in-chief, P.W. 11 has stated that the injuries noticed on the deceased could be caused with a weapon like M.O. 7, in the cross-examination she admits that stab and lacerated wound cannot be caused if assaulted with a weapon like M.O. 7. It is also elicited from her that M.O. 7 was not sent to her by the Investigating Officer for examination and for her opinion. Thus the user of M.O. 7 for inflicting the injuries is highly doubtful. According to the contents of complaint Ex. P1, the weapon used was a knife. It is also elicited from her that M.O. 7 was not sent to her by the Investigating Officer for examination and for her opinion. Thus the user of M.O. 7 for inflicting the injuries is highly doubtful. According to the contents of complaint Ex. P1, the weapon used was a knife. According to P.W. 1, injured Rangappa disclosed that he was stabbed with a knife. However, later he changed his version in his evidence before the Court that the deceased disclosed that he was stabbed with a weed remover. In the light of answer elicited from P.W. 11 in the cross-examination that injuries noticed on the dead body could not be caused with weapon like M.O. 7, the circumstance of recovery of M.O. 7 at the instance of accused does not incriminate the accused to the crime alleged. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in holding that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the complicity of the accused for the homicidal death of the deceased Rangappa. The reasonings adopted by the learned Sessions Judge for recording the judgment of acquittal are sound and reasonable having regard to the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality calling for Interference by this Court. Under these circumstances, we find no ground to entertain this appeal and hence, leave sought is rejected, consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.