U.V. BAKRE, J. :- This is an appeal against acquittal. 2. The respondent (accused) was charged for patricide. Trial ended in acquittal. State is aggrieved by the same. 3. Heard arguments. Learned A.P.P. Mrs. T. D. Khade argued on behalf of the State whereas learned Advocate Shri R. M. Daga argued on behalf of the accused. 4. Perused the record and proceedings. 5. The prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses. However, the prosecution could not produce clinching evidence to secure conviction. 6. P.W.-1 Vivek Bhore did not support the prosecution and his cross-examination done by the learned A.P.P. with the permission of the Court did not bring on record anything which could help the prosecution. 7. P.W.-2 Suresh Kadam is not an eye witness. He lodged report (Exh. 16) on being informed about the alleged incident and after seeing the dead body of Ramkrishna, the father of the accused. 8. P.W.-2 has, however, stated that there was dispute between the accused and his father Ramkrishna (deceased) in respect of land, half of which was being cultivated by the accused and remaining half by the deceased. 9. The statement of P.W.-2 to the effect that Ramkrishna was saying that he would transfer his land in the name of son of Namdeorao Sahastrabuddhe, with whom he was residing is not there in his report (Exh.16). On account of this material omission, it cannot be said that any motive for the accused to kill his own father is proved by P.W.-2. 10. Though, in his examination-in-chief: P.W.-3 Bhimrao Sasane has stated that he saw scuffle going on between the accused and his father near the house of Vilas Wankhede and that accused was beating his father Ramkrishna with hands. however, his cross-examination reveals that he had not seen the above incident. On coming out of his house, he only saw Ramkrishna lying in injured condition near his house. 11. P.W.-4 Vilas Wankhede, in his examination-in-chief has deposed as follows : The incident took place on 20/7/1997. The time was about 9.00 p.m. The incident took place near my house. I was in my house. At that time quarrel was going on in between accused and his father Ramkrishna in respect of money and land. The accused stabbed by means of gupti on left inguinal area of Ramkrishna. There was bleeding from the said injury. Ramkrishna fell down at that spot. I was in my house. At that time quarrel was going on in between accused and his father Ramkrishna in respect of money and land. The accused stabbed by means of gupti on left inguinal area of Ramkrishna. There was bleeding from the said injury. Ramkrishna fell down at that spot. Accused ran away to his house. At a distance of 20 ft. there was electric pole. On that electric pole there was tube-light. The tube-light was on. I saw the incident in light of the said tube..." (Quoted from page No.26 of the appeal paper book). 12. In his cross-examination, P.W.-4 has stated as follows. : 3. I have stated portion marked ‘A’ in my statement before police that accused stabbed by means of some sharp weapon on abdomen of his father. It is at Exh.20. There was slight darkness at spot. Somebody administered water to Ramkrishna after the incident. I could not see who administered water to Ramkrishna because of darkness. It is not true to say that I did not see the accused stabbing Ramkrishna due to darkness. 4. I have not stated in my statement that at a distance of 20 feet there was electric pole..." (Quoted from page Nos. 26 & 27 of the appeal paper book). 13. Thus, the testimony of P.W.4 contains an improvement about the existence of electric pole nearby about which he had not stated in his police statement. Another improvement is about weapon. In the police statement, P.W.-4 spoke about some sharp weapon which specifically became "gupti" after he stepped into the witness box. 14. P.W.-4 could not identify the person who administered the water to Ramkrishna because of darkness. Therefore reasonable doubt arises about recognition of the accused by P.W.-4, in the said darkness. 15. The testimony of P.W.-4 is therefore not inspiring confidence. 16. P.W.-5 Punjab Wankhede is a panch witness for panchanama of scene of offence, which in itself, cannot prove anything against the accused. 17. Lastly, P.W.-6 Pratap Chavan is the Police Sub Inspector who investigated the case. He has stated about recovery of 'gupti' at the instance of accused. However, the prosecution has not examined the panch witnesses. 18. Besides the above, the oral report (Exh.17) mentions that weapon of assault was ‘Jambhiya'and not 'gupti’. 19. 17. Lastly, P.W.-6 Pratap Chavan is the Police Sub Inspector who investigated the case. He has stated about recovery of 'gupti' at the instance of accused. However, the prosecution has not examined the panch witnesses. 18. Besides the above, the oral report (Exh.17) mentions that weapon of assault was ‘Jambhiya'and not 'gupti’. 19. The arrest panchanama and alleged attachment of some letter from the pocket of the pant of the accused is not proved as the panch witnesses to the said panchanama are not examined. It is also not proved that the said letter is in the handwriting of the accused. 20. The post-mortem examination report (Exh.29) reveals that stab wounds, incised wound and abrasions were sustained by the deceased and that cause of death was stab injuries. However, the above may only lead the Court to hold that the death of the deceased was homicidal, but that does not help to prove that the accused was the author of the said injuries. 21. The weapon report (Exh.39) and the report of Chemical Analyzer (Exh.40) lose their significance, in view of the failure of the prosecution to prove the connection of the said weapon and other articles with the accused. 22. The impugned judgment and order is therefore proper. No view other than that held by the trial Judge is possible. 23. The appeal has no merit and is therefore dismissed. Appeal dismissed.