JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. State has come in appeal against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi rendered in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2001, dated 8.11.2004 whereby the respondents-accused, who were charged with and tried for the offence under Sections 307, 324 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 9.7.2000 at 8 p.m. at village Pargi, Hans Raj and Mohinder Kumar were going near the house of the accused. Accused, Khem Chand started pelting stones on them. They made inquiries as to who was pelting stones on them. Thereafter the accused came to the path having drat and toka with them. They gave blows of the same on Mohinder Kumar and Hans Raj. Resultantly, Mohinder Kumar fell down. Thereafter Hans Raj and Mohinder Kumar raised alarm upon which their brother Lalit Kumar also reached there. At that time accused Usha Rani inflicted a toka blow on the leg of Lalit Kumar and Khem Chand inflicted drat blow on the head of Lalit Kumar. Thereafter all the injured persons raised hue and cry and the accused ran away. The injured were taken to hospital. FIR was registered on the statement of Hans Raj. The police conducted the investigation and took into possession drat and toka. The injured were got medically examined. The police after completing all the codal formalities put-up the challan before the Court. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove the case. Statements of accused were also recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have denied the case of the prosecution and have pleaded that in fact the injured Lalit Kumar, Mohinder Kumar and Hans Raj had attacked them and in the ensuing scuffle grievous as well as simple injuries were caused on their persons. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondents vide judgment dated 8.11.2004. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. 4. Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of learned trial Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and records carefully. 6. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. 4. Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of learned trial Court. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings and records carefully. 6. The prosecution has primarily relied upon the statements of PW-1 Hans Raj, PW-3 Lalit Kumar and PW 12 Mohinder Kumar coupled with medical evidence. The case of the respondents was that there was a family dispute between the two families and a false case has been registered against them. 7. PW-1, Hans Raj has testified that at the relevant time when they were coming from village Gamla, stones were hurled on them. Thereafter accused Khem Chand came out with drat and inflicted the drat blow on his younger brother, Mohinder Kumar and when he tried to save him, he was also struck on his right hand. He has further testified that when they raised hue and cry, their elder brother also reached on the spot. In the meantime accused Usha Rani came from the cowshed holding a toka in her hand and then accused Khem Chand inflicted drat blow on the forehead of Lalit Kumar who fell down. Accused Usha Rani inflicted injury with toka on the legs of Lalit Kumar, whereas, he himself received injuries near the ear and on his hand. Thereafter accused ran away. According to him, drat and toka were recovered from the accused vide recovery memos Ex.P-B and Ex.P-C. Ex.P- 1, drat and Ex.P-2, toka were identified by him. 8. PW-3, Lalit Kumar and PW-12, Mohinder Kumar have corroborated the statement of PW-1, Hans Raj. PW-4, Jalam Ram and PW-5, Khub Ram are the witnesses of recovery of toka and drat. Initially, the injured were examined at hospital at Ratti by PW-10, Dr. Shivanand Kaushal. He has proved the MLC, Ex. P-L relating the injuries suffered by Lalit Kumar. He has also proved his opinion regarding the injuries, Ex.PK/ 1. He has also proved the MLC of Mohinder Kumar vide Ex.P-M. In his cross-examination, the witness has proved the MLC of accused Khem Chand Ex.D-B and of accused Usha Rani Ex.D-A. The X-ray of Lalit Kumar was carried out at Mandi by PW-11, Rakesh Kumar. He has also proved his opinion regarding the injuries, Ex.PK/ 1. He has also proved the MLC of Mohinder Kumar vide Ex.P-M. In his cross-examination, the witness has proved the MLC of accused Khem Chand Ex.D-B and of accused Usha Rani Ex.D-A. The X-ray of Lalit Kumar was carried out at Mandi by PW-11, Rakesh Kumar. He has proved the Skiagram Ex.PO and Ex.PO/1 whereby he found that there was fracture of frontal bone skull. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P-G was proved by PW-7, Dr. Gian Thakur. Dr. Gian Thakur has found that though there was human blood on toka Ex.P-2, but the blood group of the same could not be ascertained. 9. Jagdish Kumar, PW-13 is an independent witness. He has stated that when he reached at the spot, he saw Hans Raj and Mohinder Kumar quarrelling with each other and when Lalit Kumar reached there, accused Khem Chand inflicted a drat blow on his hand and Lalit Kumar fell down. Thereafter accused Usha inflicted toka blow on his right leg. He has admitted that his house is at a distance of one kilometer from the place of occurrence. 10. PW-14, K.D. Sharma has carried out the investigation. The prosecution has not explained the injuries received by the accused persons. It is evident from Ex.D-A that Khem Chand has suffered four injuries and out of those injuries, injury No. 3 was grievous in nature, whereas, injury No. 4 had been caused by a sharp edged weapon. According to the MLC of Usha Rani, Ex.D-B, she has also suffered injuries. She was examined at 9.45 p.m. The MLC has been proved by Dr. Shivanand Kaushal. PW-14, K.D. Sharma has admitted in his cross-examination that the information regarding the quarrel between the parties was received at Police Station from some lady. He, thus proves that it was DW-1, Harwanti, who has informed the police about the incident. Though on toka human blood was found, but the blood group of the same could not be ascertained as per Forensic Science Laboratory expert report, Ex.P-G. 11. PW-13, Jagdish has given a new version by stating that when he reached on the spot, Hans Raj and Mohinder Kumar were quarrelling with each other. Though on toka human blood was found, but the blood group of the same could not be ascertained as per Forensic Science Laboratory expert report, Ex.P-G. 11. PW-13, Jagdish has given a new version by stating that when he reached on the spot, Hans Raj and Mohinder Kumar were quarrelling with each other. It has also come on record as per statements of PW-1, Hans Raj, PW-3, Lalit Kumar, PW-12, Mohinder Kumar that there is a dispute between the parties pertaining to the use of path. It has come in the statement of DW-2 that in fact, Mohinder Kumar, Lalit Kumar and Hans Raj were in the courtyard of Khem Chand and giving danda blows and they were dragging him towards danga. There was no human blood found on the toka. This also casts doubt on the prosecution story. Consequently, it is held that the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties and has come to the right conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the judgment dated 08.11.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2001 calls for no interference. 12. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents/accused are discharged.