JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 01.03.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dhramshala (H.P.) in Sessions Case No. 22-P/VII/2002, whereby the respondent, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sections 307, 333, 452 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Damage to Public Property Act, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that Pancham Singh (PW-1) was posted as Helper in HP PWD Rest House, Thural. On 18.01.2002 at 9:30 p.m., he was ironing clothes inside the Rest House at Thural, when accused came with a liquor pouch accompanied by Anup Kumar (PW-4) and one Daijee and asked the complainant for providing glasses for drinking. Pancham Singh refused to oblige them and went outside to meet the Manager of the bridge Construction Company. When he came back, he found the furniture of the Rest House broken. The accused was informed by Pancham Chand that he would intimate SDO about the damage. He was slapped by the accused and also inflicted a knife blow in his abdomen. Thereafter, accused and his companions left the Rest House. Pancham Singh cried. On hearing the cries, Bhikam Singh (PW-2) and Conductor Tinku, came inside and took him to the hospital at Thural. He was treated by Dr. Surjeet Raina (PW13). He issued M.L.C. Ex. PW-13/D. The police was informed by Dr. Surjeet Raina (PW-13) telephonically. Thereafter, F.I.R. Ex. PW-9/A was registered by PW-9, HC Vijay Kumar. The accused was arrested. He made a disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of knife Ex.-P5. The blood stained clothes of the complainant were also taken into possession vide Ex.-P2 to Ex.-P4 vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined 15 witnesses to prove its case. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He pleaded innocence and claimed trial. Learned trial Court acquitted that accused on 01.03.2004. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 5. PW-1, Sh. Pancham Singh is the complainant. According to him, on 18.01.2002, he was ironing the clothes at 9:30 p.m. inside the Rest House. Learned trial Court acquitted that accused on 01.03.2004. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 5. PW-1, Sh. Pancham Singh is the complainant. According to him, on 18.01.2002, he was ironing the clothes at 9:30 p.m. inside the Rest House. He was all alone in the Rest House at that time. He was working as a Helper. At about 9:30 p.m., accused came inside the Rest House carrying a pouch of liquor. He was accompanied by one Daijee and Anup Kumar. Accused and his companions asked him to provide glasses for drinking. He refused to oblige them. He went outside. When he came back, he found the furniture broken. He told the accused that he would inform the S.D.O. Thereafter the accused slapped him and stabbed in his abdomen with a knife. He started crying. On hearing the cries, Bhikam Singh, accompanied by Conductor of the bus, Tinku came inside and took him to Thural hospital. He was treated in the hospital. Thereafter, police also came to the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A. He was referred to C.H. Palampur and on the same night, he was referred to Dharamshala hospital, where he remained admitted for nine days and discharged on 27th January. He was also operated upon. He handed over the blood stained clothes to the police. He also identified the knife Ex. P-5. 6. PW-2, Shri Bhikam Chand has deposed that he was sleeping in the bus alongwith Conductor Tinku alias Surinder. On hearing the cries of Pancham Singh, they went to Rest House and saw injured Pancham Singh. They took him to Thural hospital. 7. PW-3, Sahib Singh has deposed that on 21.01.2002, he went to the Police Post Thural and reached there at 8:00 a.m. The accused was interrogated by the police. He informed the police about keeping of knife in bushes near temple. The police recorded his statement, which was signed by accused himself and Grib Dass. He also signed statement Ex. PW-3/A. Thereafter, accused led the police to a place about half km. from police post and got recovered knife which was having handle of brass with a button. Police kept the knife in a cloth packet and sealed the same in his presence. Seizure memo of the same was prepared vide Ex. PW-3/B. He signed the same. PW-3/A. Thereafter, accused led the police to a place about half km. from police post and got recovered knife which was having handle of brass with a button. Police kept the knife in a cloth packet and sealed the same in his presence. Seizure memo of the same was prepared vide Ex. PW-3/B. He signed the same. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has gone to the police post after 5-7 days of the incident. He was called to the police post from his house. He has admitted that a Constable had come to his house and told that something important was to be done and asked him to come to the Police Post. 8. PW-4, Anoop Singh has deposed that he never went to PWD Rest House Thural with a pouch of liquor. He was declared hostile. He also deposed that he did not know that Pancham had suffered a stab wound on 18.01.2002. 9. PW-5, Kalyan Chand has deposed that he saw broken dinning table and broken glasses alongwith plates scattered. The police has seized in his presence broken glasses and plates under memo Ex. PW-5/A. He also signed the same. 10. According to PW-6, Shri Gian Chand, on 30th January, 2002, police came to the house of Pancham, where Pancham handed over his clothes including vest, jacket and shirt. These were stained with blood and having cut mark. Police sealed the same in a parcel Ex. P-1. He signed the same. 11. The investigation was carried out by PW-11, ASI Megh Nath. He has prepared the spot map, Ex. PW-11/A. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. 12. PW-13, Shri Surjeet Raina deposed that on 18.01.2002 at about 9:45 p.m., Pancham Singh, son of Redu Ram, was brought by Bhikham with alleged history of being beaten up. He intimated the Incharge, Police Post Bhawarna vide Ex. PW-13/A. He has given his final opinion vide Ex. PW-13/E on the back side of M.L.C. He has noticed the following injuries on the body of Pancham Singh: “1. There was incised wound 2.2 cm. long and 0.8 cm. wide at its widest part elliptical in shape. 12 cm. lateral to umbilicus and 2 cm above left anterior superior iliac spine. Edges clean cut and well defined. Bleeding was present. Underlying fatty tissue exposed. Surrounding haematoma upto 1.5 cm. perimeter present. There was incised wound 2.2 cm. long and 0.8 cm. wide at its widest part elliptical in shape. 12 cm. lateral to umbilicus and 2 cm above left anterior superior iliac spine. Edges clean cut and well defined. Bleeding was present. Underlying fatty tissue exposed. Surrounding haematoma upto 1.5 cm. perimeter present. Incised wound present near left iliac fossa (as shown in diagram on MLC).” He has categorically stated that injury No. 1 was not possible with knife Ex.-P5, because the wound was incised wound which was elliptical in shape with clean edge and this was possible with a weapon which has sharp edges on both sides. He was shown Ex.-P5. According to him, one edge of Ex.-P5 was sharp and the other was blunt. In his cross-examination, he has testified that he did not remember that the patient had told the name of assailant to him or not, though the alleged history as well as name and address were supplied by the injured himself. 13. PW-15, ASI Kanshi Ram has obtained the M.L.C. of Pancham. According to him, in the presence of witnesses Garib Dass and Sahib Singh, the accused during interrogation disclosed that he could get recover the knife which he has concealed in bushes by the side of temple. His disclosure statement was reduced into writing, i.e., Ex. PW-3/A. Thereafter, the accused led them to the spot, from where the knife was recovered. It was sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex.-PW3/B. According to him, the accused has inflicted injury with knife Ex. P-5. 14. PW-13, Dr. Surjeet Raina, has examined the injured in C.H.C., Thural. He has categorically deposed that injury No. 1 found on the person of the complainant was not possible with knife, Ex. P-5. According to him, the injury could be caused with a weapon having sharp double edges, i.e. edges on both side. He was shown Ex.-P5. According to him, the injury could not be caused with knife Ex.-P5, since it was sharp on one side and blunt on the other side. 15. PW-1, Pancham Singh in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Ex.-PW1/A has stated that Bhikam Ram, one Tinku and Krishan Chand were with him inside the Rest House when he was on duty. 15. PW-1, Pancham Singh in his statement recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Ex.-PW1/A has stated that Bhikam Ram, one Tinku and Krishan Chand were with him inside the Rest House when he was on duty. He further stated at that time accused Sanjay alongwith Anup, son of Labh Singh and Daijee, son of Mohinder Singh came inside the Rest House. Sanjay was carrying a liquor pouch and sought permission to consume liquor inside the Rest House. He refused the same and thereafter accused broke glasses and dinning table and when he requested not to do so, the accused took out a knife and stabbed him. However, while appearing as PW-1, Pancham Singh has deposed that he was all alone in the Rest House when accused accompanied by Daijee and Anup Kumar with a liquor of pouch came inside the Rest House. Thus, there is variance in the contents of Ex. PW-1/A recorded by Pancham Singh under Section 154, Cr. P.C. and the statement made by him in the Court. 16. PW-4, Anoop Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. He was declared hostile. According to Anoop Singh, he never went to the PWD Rest House, Thural with a pouch of liquor. He has also denied that Pancham suffered a stab wound on 18.01.2002. 17. PW-2, Bhikam Chand has also not supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, he was sleeping in the bus alongwith Conductor Tinku alias Surinder. He heard the cries of Pnancham Singh. Then, they went to the Rest House and saw injured Pancham. They took him to the hospital at Thural. He has not testified that he was present inside the Rest House when the incident took place. 18. PW-1, Pancham Singh has not disclosed the name of the accused at the time when he was examined by PW-13, Dr. Surjeet Raina. The name of accused is not mentioned in M.L.C. Ex. PW-13/D. 19. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. The learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence, has rightly acquitted the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.