JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 28.11.2007, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharamsala, H.P., in Criminal Appeal RBT No. 1-D/2005/2002, titled as Kuldeep Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby appeal filed by the respondent-accused against the judgment dated 20.8.2002/21.8.2002, in Case No. RBT No. 28-II/02/01, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kuldeep Kumar, stands allowed and order of conviction and sentence set aside, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 23.8.2001 complainant Vipan Kumar (PW-1) was on his way to meet his friend at Tapowan, Dharamshala. At about 12.45 p.m. when he reached Sidhbari, accused Kuldeep Kumar abused and gave him a blow with a khukhari resulting into injuries on left arm and right side of the eye. He raised alarm and was rescued by passers by. Matter was reported to the police and F.I.R. No. 150 of 2001 (Ext. PW-4/A), dated 23.8.2001 registered at Police Station Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under the provisions of Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. On the asking of accused, police recovered weapon of offence i.e. khukhari (Ext. P-1) vide recovery memo (Ext. PW-1/B). Complainant was got medically examined from Dr. Dinesh Mehta (PW-6) who issued MLC (Ext. PW-6/A). With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined nine witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 5. Trial Court convicted the accused for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 6. 5. Trial Court convicted the accused for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 6. In an appeal filed by the accused, lower appellate Court set aside the findings and judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out. The lower appellate Court has correctly and completely appreciated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, as also other material placed on record. 8. That complainant was got medically examined by the police is not in dispute. Dr. Bhanu Awasthi (PW-5) and Dr. Dinesh Mehta (PW-6) medically examined the injured. As per treatment chart (Ext. PW-5/A) and MLC (Ext. PW-6/A) following injury was found on the body of the complainant:- "Incised wound on left forearm in the middle about 7 cm X 11/2 cm in size. Muscles exposed. Patient is unable to extend his hand. Margin of the would are regular. Bleeding present." Doctors have opined that possibility of suffering such an injury on account of fall on a hard surface is not ruled out. Significantly Doctor (PW-6) states that he saw the victim for the first time in court. How is this possible? This only renders the version of the witness to be doubtful. 9. Be that as it may the only question which needs to be considered is as to whether it was the accused who inflicted such injuries or not. We find testimony of complainant (PW-1) not to be inspiring in confidence at all. There are material contradictions, discrepancies, improvements, improbabilities and variations, rendering the version of the prosecution to be absolutely doubtful. In this regard, fruitfully, we can reproduce the findings returned by the lower appellate Court to the following effect:- "16. Taking into consideration the afore discussed evidence on the file, no doubt PW-1 has stated that he was administered beatings by the accused with fist blows and thereafter he was given hit with Khukhri, but some parts which are most material in Ext. Taking into consideration the afore discussed evidence on the file, no doubt PW-1 has stated that he was administered beatings by the accused with fist blows and thereafter he was given hit with Khukhri, but some parts which are most material in Ext. PW1/A marked as Mark A to A has been stated by him to be wrong. I have also perused the statement made by him on oath and found that there are some inconsistencies. One inconsistency in his statement and the report Ext. PW1/A which is stated to have been recorded at his instance is material one which has remained un-explained and at the same time neither the Investigating Officer has stated anything qua the role of another person allegedly sitting with the accused when the injured happened to pass from there and firstly used words of abuse and thereafter administered beatings. There should have been some evidence regarding the other person, he should have joined as witness so that he could have given the correct version of the occurrence. The Investigating Officer has also not conducted any injury in this regard and at the same time PW-1 has also deposed nothing as to which person was there. As far as PW-2 is concerned he has stated that he reached on the spot after the injury had already been caused. He has not stated anything regarding the presence of 3rd person, but has stated that only two persons were there who were quarrelling and on hearing cries he proceeded to the spot. There is nothing qua intention of the accused to give injury on the person of injured. For an offence to be punished u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be proved that the injury which was caused was with intention. But as per the statement of PW-1 he is not aware as to why he was administered beatings. He has stated that the accused was known to him from the childhood and they were having good relations even until date, but when he appeared in the court he could not ascertain as to why he was administered beatings. The Investigating Officer has also deposed that he is not aware as to what was the reason for causing of injury. Thus, the most material element to constitute offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. causing of injury intentionally is lacking. The Investigating Officer has also deposed that he is not aware as to what was the reason for causing of injury. Thus, the most material element to constitute offence u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. causing of injury intentionally is lacking. Thus there being no intention to cause injury and causing of injury cannot be called to be an offence punishable u/s 326 of the Indian Penal Code." 10. Further what we find is that version of the complainant in Court is at variance with what was so narrated in the F.I.R. In Court he states that accused had an accomplice with him which fact is not so stated therein. If it was so then why is it that prosecution has not investigated the matter properly? In the F.I.R. he got recorded that accused abused him. When he inquired cause for the same, he was then assaulted. But in Court resiling from this part of his testimony, with which he was confronted, he proceeds to depose that without any reason or cause accused assaulted and gave blow with a khukhri. Genesis of prosecution story that accused intercepted the complainant; abused him; and when confronted, gave blow with a khukhri is rendered doubtful from the version so narrated by the complainant in Court. 11. We find Rakesh Kumar (PW-2), independent witness to the recovery, not to have supported this version and another witness Sanjay Kumar not examined in Court. 12. Version of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to assault also cannot be said to be free from doubt. Complainant states that he does not know the cause of assault by accused Kuldeep Kumar. Yet admits that both he and the accused had sorted out their differences and entered into a compromise. It appears that both the complainant and the accused being students had certain issues. Prosecution has not been able to establish the genesis of the inter se dispute. Version, which prosecution wants us to believe, is not only improbable but also not borne out from the record. Significantly there is no eye-witness to the incident and testimony of PW-2 with regard to assault is only hearsay. 13. Prosecution has not been able to establish the genesis of the inter se dispute. Version, which prosecution wants us to believe, is not only improbable but also not borne out from the record. Significantly there is no eye-witness to the incident and testimony of PW-2 with regard to assault is only hearsay. 13. Having perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence on record to the effect that accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant with a khukhri. It cannot be said that findings returned by the lower appellate Court are not borne out from the record, are perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incomplete and incorrect appreciation of prosecution evidence. 14. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the lower appellate Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., AIR 2010 SC 566 , since it cannot be said that the lower appellate Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.