Judgment S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The State is the appellant. The respondents herein are the accused in S.C.No.23/2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. They stood charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court acquitted them by judgment, dated 10.08.2006. The State is aggrieved. That is how the State is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) The deceased in this case was one Perumal. There was a long standing land dispute between the 2nd accused and the deceased. The 1st accused is the son of the 2nd accused. P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.1 is their son. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.5 was then working under the deceased. There is a common Well just by the side of the house of the 1st accused, in which, according to the prosecution, the deceased had right to take water. (b) On 04.12.2005, P.W.5 had gone to the said Well, for taking water. It was 6.00 p.m. The 1st accused objected to the same and attacked P.W.5. P.W.5 returned to the house of the deceased and told him about the same. At about 6.30 p.m., on hearing about the same from P.W.5, the deceased asked P.W.5 and P.W.2 to go to the well. Accordingly, they went to the Well followed by the deceased. Both the accused were there near the Well. The 1st accused was armed with a stick. The deceased asked them as to why did they attack P.W.5. Immediately, the 1st accused attacked the deceased on his hand, with stick. The 2nd accused fisted the deceased on his chest, repeatedly. The 1st accused again attacked the deceased on his head. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 5. P.Ws.3 and 4 raised alarm. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the deceased came in his cycle to his house and complained of chest pain as well as pain on his hand. (c) P.W.3 informed P.W.1 about the occurrence, over phone. P.W.1 rushed to the house. The deceased told him that he had pain on the chest and on the hands. The deceased also told P.W.1 that he was attacked these accused. Then, P.W.1 took the deceased to the hospital. (c) P.W.3 informed P.W.1 about the occurrence, over phone. P.W.1 rushed to the house. The deceased told him that he had pain on the chest and on the hands. The deceased also told P.W.1 that he was attacked these accused. Then, P.W.1 took the deceased to the hospital. On his way, P.W.1 went to Pasupathipalayam Police Station and informed about the occurrence. From there, he took the deceased to Government Hospital at Karur. (d) P.W.13 was an Assistant Civil Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Karur. On 04.12.2005, at about 8.30 p.m., he examined the deceased. The deceased told him that he was attacked by three known persons, with wooden logs. He complained of chest pain. His pulse rate was not measurable. Blood Pressure had also gone down. P.W.13 admitted him as an inpatient. Ex.P-7 is the Accident Register. After admission, within short time, the deceased died. Thereafter, P.W.1 rushed to the Police Station and made a complaint (Ex.P-1) at 11.30 p.m., on 04.12.2005. (e) P.W.18, the then Inspector of Police, attached to Pasupathipalayam Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P-1-Complaint, registered a case in Crime No.698/2005 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P-14 is the FIR. He forwarded the complaint and FIR to the Court. Then he proceeded to the place of occurrence on 05.12.2005 at 6.00 a.m. He prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P-2) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P-15), in the presence of witnesses. Then he went to the Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, between 7.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. Ex.P-16 is the Inquest Report. Then he forwarded the body for postmortem. (f) P.W.12 Dr. Selvakumar conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.12.2005 at 9.50 a.m. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased. "A lacerated injury 1 x 1cm x muscle depth over left upper arm. O/D. Skull 100ml of blood present in the sub scalp in the occipital region. Cranial cavity contain 200 ml of blood. Skull base fracture. Hyoid intact. Heart chambers contain 50 gms of clotted blood. Stomach contained 200gms of undigested food particles. Bladder empty. All the internal organs are pale." Ex.P-6 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury, about 10 to 15 hours prior to autopsy. (g) Continuing the investigation, P.W.18 examined the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements. Stomach contained 200gms of undigested food particles. Bladder empty. All the internal organs are pale." Ex.P-6 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury, about 10 to 15 hours prior to autopsy. (g) Continuing the investigation, P.W.18 examined the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, at 1.15 p.m., near Thanthonimalai Municipal Office, P.W.18 arrested both the accused. On such arrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wooden log. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the said place and produced M.O.1 wooden log. Then P.W.18 forwarded both the accused to Court, for judicial remand. He forwarded the material objects to the Court, with a request to the Court to forward the same for chemical examination. The dress materials found on the deceased were also sent for chemical examination. Then, P.W.18 laid charge sheet against the accused, on 18.01.2006. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed a lone charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against both the accused and they denied the same and pleaded innocence. Therefore, they were put on trial. In order to prove the charge, on the side of the prosecution, 18 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked, besides 6 material objects. Out of the above said witnesses, P.Ws.2 to 5 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 4. When the above incriminating evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C., they denied them as false. On their side, they examined 3 witnesses. D.W.1 is the sister-in-law of the 1st accused and D.W.2 is the wife of the 2nd accused. These two witnesses have stated that in respect of taking water from the Well, there was only a scuffle between the deceased and the 1st accused and he was not at attacked. D.W.3 Dr. R. Vallinayagam is a Forensic Medicine Expert. Second opinion has been obtained from him, by examining him as a defence witnesses to offer his opinion regarding the nature of the injuries found on the deceased and the possible cause for the same. Having considered the above materials, the trial court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them from the charge levelled against them. Second opinion has been obtained from him, by examining him as a defence witnesses to offer his opinion regarding the nature of the injuries found on the deceased and the possible cause for the same. Having considered the above materials, the trial court found the accused not guilty and acquitted them from the charge levelled against them. That is how the State is before this Court with this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the records, carefully. 6. The lower court has found that at the earliest opportunity when the deceased was taken to the hospital, he told the Doctor that he was attacked by three known persons, with wooden logs. This is certainly a dying declaration falling within the sweep of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, before the Court, there are only two accused. Even among the two, one accused alone was armed with wooden log and the other was not armed with any weapon. Thus, the earliest oral dying declaration made by the deceased to the Doctor is in total conflict with the prosecution case. 7. Nextly, according to the charge, the 1st accused attacked the deceased with wooden log, on his head. But, P.Ws.2 to 5 have uniformly stated that the 1st accused attacked the deceased only on his left hand. They have not stated that any of the accused attacked the deceased on his head. It is their evidence that the 2nd accused fisted the deceased on his chest. The lower court has found that there was no corresponding injury on the chest at all. So far as the head injury, which is sought to be proved to be fatal, no witness has stated that any of the accused attacked the deceased on the head. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution at all, in any manner. 8. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased complained of pain on the chest and hand. It is also the evidence of P.W.5 that the deceased complained of pain on the chest and hand. He did not complain of any pain on the head. P.W.13, Dr. Vijayakumar, examined the deceased at 8.30 p.m. on 04.12.2005. 8. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased complained of pain on the chest and hand. It is also the evidence of P.W.5 that the deceased complained of pain on the chest and hand. He did not complain of any pain on the head. P.W.13, Dr. Vijayakumar, examined the deceased at 8.30 p.m. on 04.12.2005. At that time, he was told by the deceased that he was suffering from chest pain alone. He did not say that he had pain on the head. In Ex.P-7, the Doctor has mentioned that the patient complained of only chest pain. Had it been true that the deceased was attacked by the accused with wooden log on the head, certainly, there would have been pain and the deceased would have shown the location of the attack made on the head to the Doctor. The very fact that there is no eye-witness account, thereby accounting the vital injury on the head, would go to show that the prosecution has not come forward with the truth and P.Ws.2 to 5 would not have been witnesses to the occurrence at all. 9. The evidence of D.W.3 also assumes importance in this case. D.W.3 is a Forensic Medicine Expert. He has got experience of having conducted 2000 postmortem examinations, spreading for a period of 15 years. He is a retired Professor in Forensic Medicine from Madras Medical College. He has opined that if attack had really been made on the head with wooden log on the head with a formidable like weapon M.O.1, certainly there would have been atleast contusion. But, there was no contusion at all found. The Doctor has further opined that the postmortem was not conducted properly and the said postmortem examination is incomplete. He has stated that the Doctor who conducted postmortem had noticed only a fracture to the skull, but he has not further explored as to whether there was any injury to brain. He has given lot of reasons as to why he quoted the postmortem as an incomplete postmortem examination. The lower court has given weightage for the evidence of D.W.3 also. We do not find any reason to take a different view. 10. Having a scientific analysis, as stated above, when we look into the evidence let in by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. The lower court has given weightage for the evidence of D.W.3 also. We do not find any reason to take a different view. 10. Having a scientific analysis, as stated above, when we look into the evidence let in by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. There are lot of doubts as narrated above which were not explained by the prosecution at all. In an appeal against acquittal, unless it is shown that the view taken by the trial court is an impossible view, it is not possible for the appellate court to substitute its view in the place of the view taken by the trial court. In this case, in our considered opinion, the view taken by the trial court cannot be stated to be an impossible view. Thus, we are of the view that the trial court was right in acquitting the accused. 11. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed and accordingly, the judgment of acquittal, acquitting the respondents from the charge levelled against them, rendered by the trial court is hereby confirmed.