JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(3)(i), Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 1.12.1987 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur by which the said Court acquitted all the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them under Sections 302, 302/34 and 324 I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 43/1986. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent Durga Dan died, therefore, an order was passed on 12.7.2013 dismissing the State appeal as against deceased respondent Durga Dan as having abated. 3. Facts of the case indicate that an F.I.R. Was registered on 14.5.1986 at 11.00 A M. at Police Station Gagunda in which complainant Hukmidan alleged that his brother Premdan S/o Shambho Dan was coming from his agriculture field and, in between the way, Jabbar Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Durga Dan inflicted injuries with lathi and knife and due to injuries received by him upon his head and above right side of the eye he cried. Upon intervention by the complainant and one Fateh Dan, the assailants ran away from the place of the occurrence. This incident occurred due to enmity in between the parties with regard to partition of the land situated near the well. 4. Upon registration of the above F.I.R. on 14.5.1986, the Investigation Officer of the Police Station Gogunda proceeded to conduct investigation and, after usual investigation, the Police filed challan against the respondents Jabbar Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Durga Dan. 5. In the trial, statements of 8 prosecution witnesses were recorded and after recording statements of the prosecution side the trial Court recorded statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313, Cr.P.C., thereafter, the defence led evidence of DW-1 Fateh Dan, DW-2 Bhawani Dan, DW-3 Bhanwar Singh and DW-4 Kalu Singh. The trial Court after completion of the trial acquitted all the respondents from the charges levelled against them for committing offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 324 and 323, I.P.C. 6. The State is challenging the validity of the judgment impugned dated 1.12.1987 on the ground that although PW-1 Laxman, eye-witness, PW-3 Durgalal and PW-4 Badan Singh turned hostile but PW-2 Hukmidan, author of the F.I.R. gave categorical statement to prove the prosecution case but the learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant State submits that the trial Court has committed a gross error while not appreciating the testimony of PW-2 Hukmidan in right perspective, in which, he has categorically stated that his brother deceased Premdan was assaulted with knife and la this by assailants Jabbar Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Durga Dan. It is vehemently argued that the finding of the trial Court is based upon wrong assumption that there is material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside because it has been passed by the trial Court without taking into consideration that fact that PW-2 Hukmidan, PW-2 is eye-witness of the incident and lie has categorically stated that his brother Premdan was assaulted by the respondents and due to the injuries sustained by Premdan he died. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the Investigating Officer and doctor PW-6 Shankar Lal who performed the post mortem gave statement that deceased Premdan died due to head injury, therefore, the finding given by the trial Court is totally erroneous. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the impugned judgment may be quashed and the respondents may be convicted for offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 324 and 323 I.P.C. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Jabbar Singh and Bhanwar Singh, submits that there is no error in the judgment impugned because as per the F.I.R., Ex.-2 the complainant mentioned in the F.I.R. that at the time of occurrence he and one Fateh Dan went to the spot for rescue of his brother deceased Premdan but Fateh Dan was not produced as prosecution witness and, in defence, the respondents produced him before the Court as DW-1, in which, DW-1 Fateh Dan has not corroborated the allegation levelled by PW 2 Hukmidan, brother of the deceased and author of the F.I.R. Therefore, first of all, when the first contention made in the F.I.R. by the complainant is not found correct, then, obviously it cannot be said that the finding given by the trial Court with regard to major contradictions is erroneous. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that admittedly there is no independent prosecution witness examined in the trial whereas the incident took place in the morning at 8 O'clock and, in the statement of PW-2 Hukmidan, it is categorically stated by him that at the time of the occurrence his neigh bourers Bhanwar Singh, Jalam Singh and Kalu Singh were present but no investigation was made from them nor they were produced before the Court, therefore, no error has been committed by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have scanned the entire evidence on record. 12. Admittedly, eye-witness PW-1 Laxman turned hostile. PW-3 Durga Lai, witness to the recovery also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story. Similarly, PW-4 Badan Singh, witness to recovery also turned hostile before the Court and did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, it can be said that there no witness except PW-2 Hukmidan to support the prosecution story. 13. We have examined the testimony of PW-2 Hukmidan also who is admittedly brother of deceased Premdan. In this statement before the Court, he has not only made mention of the presence of Fateh Dan but said that at the time of the occurrence his neighbours Bhanwar Singh, Jalam Singh and Kalu Singh all were present. The following statement was given by him at page 2 of his statement: " ekjihV gqbZ rc ?kVukLFky ds iM+kSlh Hkaoj flag] tkye flag] dkyqflag oxSjk lc ekStwn FksA " 14. Similarly, at page 1 of his statement, it is categorically stated by PW-2 Hukmidan that, " eSa ikl esa gh Fkk ckYVh esjs gkFk esa Fkh eSa nksM+ dj vk;kA vkSj Qrsnku Hkh vk x;kA " but Fatehdan was not produced by the prosecution whereas he was produced by the respondents in their defence and his statement was recorded as DW-1, in which, he has stated altogether different story and supported the defence; meaning thereby, the trial Court has rightly discredited the testimony of PW-2 Hukmidan for arriving at the finding of acquittal. 15. 15. It is also very important to mention here that before the Court PW-2 Hukmidan improved upon his statement recorded during investigation when he was confronted with his earlier statement and stated before the Court that the police has written at its own; meaning thereby, there was no option for the trial Court but to give the finding that testimony of Hukmidan, PW-2 is not trustworthy. Before the Court, only the statement of PW-2 Hukmidan was recorded in support of the prosecution case and all other witnesses of recovery and incident turned hostile before the Court. 16. In view of above, we are of the opinion that virtually this is a case of no evidence or based upon reliable evidence. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the finding arrived at by the trial Court with regard to discrediting the testimony of PW-2 Hukmidan. Therefore, no interference is called for with the finding of acquittal arrived at by the trial Court.Hence, Instant State appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******