JUDGMENT A.H. JOSHI, J.:- This is a State appeal against acquittal accompanied by revision application of the complainant, both against the Judgment and order of acquittal rendered in Sessions Trial No.152 of 2003. 2. The accused were tried for commission of offence under Section 307, 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Perused the record. 4. The prosecution story as brought forward by the eye witnesses including the injured is that some weapons like Gupti or knife were used resulting into incise and penetrated wounds on stomach, chest etc. 5. In so far as the eye witnesses are concerned on the point of assault, there is variation and lack of certainty as to identity of the weapon of assault. 6. The injuries referred to in the injury certificate Exh.16 are 5 in numbers. The text of certificate Exh. 16 reads as follows: INJURY REPORT "This is to state that Mr. Ghanshyamdas Kanjwani was admitted at Orange City Hospital on 26.03.2000 with multiple penetrating injuries over abdomen and chest, penetrating wounds were present at : 1. Umbilicus penetrating down to omentum, bowels spared. 2. Right shoulder around 4 cms. Deep with partial injury to humeral neck. 3. Pre cardial injury perforating the sterum with wound entering into it. (pleura) sparing pericardium. 4. Left supra clavicular wound around 3 cms, depth exposing the internal jugular vein. 5. Left posterior axillary fold around 4 cms. Deep. Sd/- Dr. Sudhir Tomey M. S. (Gen. Sur.) Mch (Gastro Int. Sur)" [Quoted from page 29 of the appeal record.] 7. It is seen that the date of incident is 26-3-2000, while the medical certificate is dated 5-6-2000. The MLC report was made by the Hospital, which does not bear a specific date, however, it pertains to incident dated 26-3-2000. Those reports (MLC) are Exh.18 & 19 and are accompanied by a certificate as to injuries which is dated 28-32000 issued by the same Hospital. It describes multiple stab injuries. 8. Learned Advocate Mr. Daga for the respondents pointed out that penetrating stab injuries are alleged and depth is also given, but the extent of injury and damage to internal organ, if any, caused thereby is not described. 9. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove that the injuries caused were serious or grave and fatal enough to have resulted into death in ordinary course. 10. 9. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove that the injuries caused were serious or grave and fatal enough to have resulted into death in ordinary course. 10. It is seen that the weapons were referred to the Government Medical Officer for opinion. The Government Medical Officer had declined to opine on the ground that he had not seen the patient, nor the injuries. The weapons, however, were not sent to the private Medical Practitioner who had treated the patient. 11. The fact that there were dispute between the family of accused and injured relating to a shop was suggested to the prosecution witness no.3, and said fact is admitted by the witness. 12. In the background of enmity and failure on the part of prosecution to prove the genesis of offence, the prosecution story comes under grave doubt. 13. The assault by the accused persons resulting into some injury is proved, however, the gravity and extent thereof to lead to death in ordinary course is not proved. This could never lead to conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Had the weapons been proved and connected with the offence, even offence of causing simple injury with deadly weapon has not been proved. Weapons are not identified or connected with offence by circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted. 15. The view is taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the story put forth by the prosecution leads to doubt as to the involvement of the accused persons. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be possible and for converting the acquittal into conviction for offence under Section 323 of I.P.C., we do not feel that this is a fit case. 16. In such situation, the evidence though may admit one more opinion as to possibility of commission of any smaller offence, the Judgment cannot be regarded as perverse and rendered without taking into account the evidence on record. 17. We are, therefore, satisfied that appeal as well as revision does not warrant any indulgence. 18. Both appeal as well as criminal revision application are dismissed. Appeal and Revision application dismissed.