JUDGMENT : This appeal by State questions acquittal of the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 427 read with 34 of the Penal Code recorded by the learned JMFC Pernem, Goa on the conclusion of trial of criminal case no.50/S/2010 before her. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: The respondents are sisters-in-law of the first informant Radhika Sawant. They have some disputes in the family. On 6/05/2010 at about 11.30 a.m. when Radhika was standing near the fencing of her house along with her father-in-law and Radhika's mother PW2/Sumitra, respondent no.1 abused her assaulted her, bit her left thumb, and also assaulted PW2/Sumitra when she came to the rescue of her daughter. Respondent no.2 also assaulted Radhika and her mother Sumitra. Mangalsutra which Radhika was wearing was broken in the scuffle. The cause of quarrel was mango tree. Radhika complained to the police whereby offence was registered and Radhika and Sumitra were sent for medical examination. The police recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation sent charge sheet to the Court of the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned Magistrate charged the respondents of offences punishable under Section 324, 504 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial on which prosecution examined 5 witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the respondents. After considering the defence of false implication raised by the respondents, the learned Magistrate proceeded to acquit the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and with her help, I have gone through the entire evidence on record. The learned Magistrate has refused to believe the evidence of PW1/Radhika and PW2/Sumitra, who, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, are injured eye witnesses, whose evidence should not have been discarded. PW3/Dr. Sandesh, who had examined the two witnesses proved the medical certificates at exhibit 11. PW2/Sumitra had swelling on right zygomatic region, swelling on the right upper lip, bruise on the left side of the cheek and 6 multiple vertical bruises on the left side of the thoracic region on the back with an abrasion on right side of neck. PW1/Radhika had four distinct puncture marks 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms at the base of the left thumb. PW1/Radhika had four distinct puncture marks 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms at the base of the left thumb. Both the mother and the daughter had stated that they sustained these injuries in the assault launched by the respondents. PW4/Fatu Korgaonkar was pancha and PW5/Ladji Naik conducted investigation. 5. The learned Magistrate found that the evidence of these two witnesses was not enough to hold the respondents guilty of the offences for which they were charged. The learned Magistrate had observed that Raghunath Sawant, father-in-law of Radhika who was allegedly present at the time of the incident, had not been examined by the prosecution, though his testimony would have helped in deciding the prosecution case as he was related to both PW1/Radhika and the respondents. The learned Magistrate made these observations even after being shown judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of GosuJayarami Reddy & Anr. V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh reported at (2011)11 SCC 766 on which the learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance even before me. There can be no doubt that it is the discretion of Public Prosecutor to decide which of the listed witnesses are to be examined for unfolding the prosecution case. These observations in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the judgment come in the context of a murder trial, where a number of witnesses were cited. Here, the number of witnesses to the incident cited was only three and except for the victim and her mother who were injured the only witnesses who could be said to have no grievance was Raghunath Sawant, the father-in-law of PW1/Radhika Sawant, who was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore the prosecution could not claim on the basis of judgment in GosuJayarami Reddy & Anr. (supra) that it could choose to drop Raghunath, since evidence of Raghunath could have had some element of neutrality. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court first in the case of State of U.P. V/s. Anil Singh reported at AIR 1988 SC 1998 and second in the case of Chikkarangaiah& Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka reported at 2009 (17) SCC 497 in support of her contention that ordinarily corroboration by independent eye witnesses may not be necessary and evidence of injured victim should be enough. Even these two judgments were rendered in proceedings arising out of trials of murder. In Chikkarangaiah& Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka reported at 2009 (17) SCC 497 in support of her contention that ordinarily corroboration by independent eye witnesses may not be necessary and evidence of injured victim should be enough. Even these two judgments were rendered in proceedings arising out of trials of murder. In Chikkarangaiah& Ors. (supra) observations of the Supreme Court about reliability of evidence of injured eye witness came in the context of PW6, who has been injured along with the deceased in the incident. It may be useful to quote paragraphs 41 to 46 of the judgment to understand the context in which the Supreme Court came to observe that there was no reason for an injured eye witness to falsely implicate the accused person instead of blaming the said assailants. “41. The Police came to his house at 1 p.m. He was taken along with the deceased and PW-3 to the Kunigal Government Hospital. He reached the hospital at about 1.30 or 2 p.m. He was in Kunigal Hospital till the evening and after that he left to Bangalore for further treatment. He was in Bangalore 21 at about 9 p.m. He was admitted at Victoria Hospital and was in-patient for about 15 days. He learnt at the Bangalore hospital that the deceased was dead. The Police on 16-9-1989 recorded his statement. He fairly admits that he was able to identify only 8 accused and they were A-3, A-12, A-11, A-13, A-10, A-1, A-9 and A-21. He clearly implicates the following accused as having chased and assaulted him i. e. A-1, A-3, A- 9, A-11, A-12, A-13 and A-21. 42. PW-6 was an Assistant Marketing Officer and was an educated person. If PW-6 wanted to implicate the accused with respect to the attack on the deceased, he could have stated falsely that he witnessed the occurrence with respect to the deceased. Being an injured person his evidence would have been a great value with respect to the attack on the deceased to the prosecution. He truthfully says that he came to the scene immediately after the occurrence and on his way to the bus stop he was chased and assaulted by the aforesaid 8 accused. 43. PW-6 was examined at Kunigal Hospital for his injuries by PW-14 (Doctor) at about 2.30 p.m. PW-6 was discharged in the evening to enable him to get better treatment at Bangalore. Injury Nos. 43. PW-6 was examined at Kunigal Hospital for his injuries by PW-14 (Doctor) at about 2.30 p.m. PW-6 was discharged in the evening to enable him to get better treatment at Bangalore. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 according to the Doctor could have been caused by sticks and Injury Nos. 3 to 7 could have been caused by throwing stones. He was also treated at Bangalore by PW-13 (Doctor). PW-13 in his evidence stated that the patient gave the 22 history of assault said to have taken place on 15-9-1989 at 11.00 a.m. his village Hosahalli with sticks and stones by A-3, A-13 and others. PW-13 has also stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injuries Nos. 3 to 6 are simple in nature. According to Pw- 3, these injuries could have been caused by blunt object. PW13 further stated that the act of throwing stones could have caused some injuries to PW-6. 44. It is quite clear that when PW-6 was first seen at Kunigal Hospital at 2.30 p.m. almost immediately after the occurrence as stated earlier, PW-14 who examined PW-6 states that PW-6 gave him the history of assault. He was again examined by the Doctor (PW-13) at Victoria Hospital on 15.09.1989 at 8.15 pm in which PW-6 gave the history of assault with sticks and also by throwing stones by A-3, A-13 and others. Therefore, even at the earliest point of time PW-6 did mention about the accused who assaulted him by the words & quot; A-3, A-13 and others. 45. It is to be noted that PW-6 had no opportunity to give a complaint to the Police, since the earlier complaint by PW-1 had covered the second incident as well. PW-6 is an injured witness who had suffered grievous injuries and was examined by the Police though not at the time of inquest but immediately after the inquest on the next day of the occurrence. He could not have been examined at the time of inquest since he was bed ridden 23 at Victoria hospital. No contradictions or omissions have been elicited from PW-6 in his evidence by the defence with respect to the identification of the accused. 46. That being the position, we find no reason why an injured witness instead of giving the name of real assailants would unnecessarily implicate other people falsely who was not the real assailants. No contradictions or omissions have been elicited from PW-6 in his evidence by the defence with respect to the identification of the accused. 46. That being the position, we find no reason why an injured witness instead of giving the name of real assailants would unnecessarily implicate other people falsely who was not the real assailants. There is no reason to disbelieve and discard the evidence of PW-6 who though did not speak about the main incident with respect to the assault on the deceased but clearly stated that while he was going to the bus stop he was assaulted by 8 accused namely A-3, A-12, A-11, A-13, A-10, A-1, A-9 and A-21. The trial Court acquitted these 8 accused on the ground that the presence of PW-6 at the scene of occurrence immediately after the occurrence is doubtful. The trial Court gave the benefit of doubt to the accused, since PW-6 did not give the names of each of the accused individually before the Doctors (PW-13 and PW-14). However, it failed to consider the fact that it was not possible for PW-6 to give the name of the each of the accused individually since he had clearly mentioned A-3, A-13 and & quot; others & quot;. The word & quot; others & quot; clearly indicate that he knew their identity that is why when he was examined by the Police after the occurrence on the 24 very next day he gave the names of all the 8 accused which was supported by his evidence in the Court.” 7. The case at hand is not about naming wrong person as assailants or screening the real offenders. The incident arose out of family dispute about a mango trees. The injuries sustained by the two witnesses were minor. The possibility of the witness taking advantage of the injury sustained by them in order to implicate sisters-in-law of PW1/Radhika was not ruled out. In case a victim sustains serious injuries it would be reasonable to expect that they would name the real culprits rather than making accusation against person with whom they may have some enmity. Here both the victims have suffered only minor injuries and possibility of their implicating the sisters-in-law therefore existed, benefit whereof was rightly given by the learned Magistrate to the respondents. 8. Here both the victims have suffered only minor injuries and possibility of their implicating the sisters-in-law therefore existed, benefit whereof was rightly given by the learned Magistrate to the respondents. 8. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court would be justified in setting aside acquittal only if it is shown that the view taken by the learned Magistrate was perverse or improbable. Such is not the present case. 9. In view of this the appeal is dismissed.