Rakesh Tiwari, J.:- Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate practicing on criminal side for last about 10 years has been appointed as Amicus curiae to represent the respondent-accused as none of the Advocates of his choice appointed by the respondents have put in appearance to pursue this case in their behalf. 2. Heard Sri Ram Yash Pandey, learned AGA for the appellant-state, Sri P.K. Singh, Amicus curiae, representing the case of respondent no.3-accused Omvir and perused the record. 3. This government appeal has been preferred by the State of U.P. challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 20.6.84 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut in S.T. No. 112 of 1983 ( State versus Dhara and others) whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused under Section 307 /34 IPC. 4. The facts, in brief, as culled out from the record are that first informant Sohan Vir Singh son of Begraj Singh resident of village Pushar, P.S. Doghat, District Meerut submitted a written report at police station Doghat on 12.3.80, inter alia, stating that his agricultural field where sugarcane crop was standing and that of respondent-accused Dhara are adjacent to each other. Kallu, Omvir and Ranvir are sons of Dhara. Kallu and Omvir had taken some sugarcane crop from his agricultural field on 11.3.80 and when he protested he was beaten by aforesaid three sons of Dhara with bricks due to which he received many injuries on his head and he fell unconscious. The assailants went away extending threats of dire consequences in case he reported the matter to the police. 5. On the next day on 12.3.80 at about 8.00 A.M. when he along with his mother Smt. Ram Dei and relatives in the village was going in the 'Buggi' for reporting the matter at the police station the aforesaid assailants again beat them in the way in front of the house of Sardar son of Uma Rao with lathis. This incident was seen by Sardar son of Umrao, Bhullan son of Kanak Singh, Angrej Singh son of Kadam Singh and Dhara son of Rishal Ji, and they saved him and his mother from the clutches of the assailants who had received injuries in her skull whereas the first informant also sustained several injuries. 6. On the basis of written report check report was scribed by Head constable Har Saran Sharma. 6. On the basis of written report check report was scribed by Head constable Har Saran Sharma. After making G.D. entry FIR was registered at case crime no. 28/1980, under Sections 337 and 323 IPC against respondents-accused Dhara, Kallu, Omvir and Ranvir on 12.3.80 at about 11.30 A.M. The first informant and his mother Smt. Ram Dei were sent for medical examination to C.H. Tikari, Meerut and had been examined by Dr. Dharam Chand Gupta ( PW-5). The injury report ( Ex.Ka-2) of Smt. Ram Dei, aged about 50 years, w/o Beg Raj resident of village Pushar, P.S. Deghat, District Meerut shows that she had received following injuries on her body. 1. Lacerated wound 7 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep on the right side scalp 7 cm. above the right ear. Direction oblique. Injury kept under observation and advised for x-ray. There is black eye condition. 2. An incised wound 5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x bone deep on the right side scalp 6-1/2 cm. above and 3 cm. posterior to the right ear. Direction oblique. 3. Bruise 6 cm. x 2 cm. on the right side face. ( Rt.zygomatic area) 2 cm. away from infront of right ear. Colour red. Direction oblique. Injury kept under observation and advised for x-ray. The doctor opined that injury no.1 had been caused by blunt object, injury no. 2 by sharp edged weapon and injury no. 3 by blunt object. 7. Dr. Dharam Chand Gupta ( PW-5) also examined the first informant Sohanvir Singh, aged about 22 years son of Beg Raj resident of village Pushar, P.S.Doghat, District Meerut on 12.3.80 at 2.30 P.M. His injury report ( Ex.Ka-3) shows that he had received following injuries on his person. 1. Lacerated wound 1-1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x muscle deep on the right side scalp 5 cm. above the right eye brow. Direction oblique. 2. Abrasion 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the right side forehead 1 cm. above the right eyebrow. Direction oblique. 3. Abraded bruise 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the post surface of right forearm 1 cm. below from post surface of right elbow link. Colour red. Direction oblique. 8. The doctor opined that all injuries were simple and inflicted by blunt object except injury no.2, which was caused by friction against rough object. 9. Direction oblique. 3. Abraded bruise 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on the post surface of right forearm 1 cm. below from post surface of right elbow link. Colour red. Direction oblique. 8. The doctor opined that all injuries were simple and inflicted by blunt object except injury no.2, which was caused by friction against rough object. 9. The investigation of the case was taken over by S.I. Narendra Singh, who after recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and visiting the place of occurrence submitted chargesheet ( Ex.Ka-10) against the respondents-accused under Sections 337, 323 and 324 IPC. On the basis of the medical evidence the Court of Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 307 /34 IPC and committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. 10. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut framed charge under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against respondents-accused persons Dhara, Kallu, Omvir and Ranvir for committing an offence with common intention for causing injuries to first informant Sohanvir and his mother Smt. Ram Dei with 'lathi' and 'Tabal' to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses namely, Sohan Vir Singh ( P.W.1), Angrez Singh ( P.W.2), Bhullan Singh ( P.W.3), Smt. Ram Dei ( P.W.4), Dr. D.C. Gupta ( P.W.5), Dr. N.S. Pal ( P.W.6) and Har Saran Sharma ( P.W.7), whereas in defence the respondents-accused had filed a copy of the judgment dated 17.9.1954 ( paper no. 39 kha-1) and no oral evidence had been adduced by the respondents-accused in defence. 12. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the respondents-accused stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to ill-will and partibandi. 13. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20.6.94 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut acquitted the respondents-accused aforesaid holding that they were not found guilty of the charge. 14. 12. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the respondents-accused stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to ill-will and partibandi. 13. By the impugned judgment and order dated 20.6.94 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Meerut acquitted the respondents-accused aforesaid holding that they were not found guilty of the charge. 14. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 20.6.84 the State of U.P. has preferred the present government appeal on the ground that there were no contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the alleged contradictions, if any, do not effect the merits of the case; that the witnesses examined by the prosecution were independent and reliable and the prosecution case was fully corroborated by oral and medical evidence on record; that the evidence of first informant and his mother who had received serious injuries in the incident, was sufficient to convict and sentence the respondents-accused; that there was no delay in examining the first informant and his mother by the I.O. hence, the contrary view taken by the trial Court in this regard is erroneous; that the order of acquittal is against the weight of evidence on record and is based on surmises and conjectures which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 15. In the order sheet dated 30.1.2013 it has been averred that respondents-accused Dhara and Ramvir have died during the pendency of this appeal, hence the appeal against them already stood abated vide order dated 5.9.2005. As per reports of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut dated 9.2.2012 and 16.4.2012 respondent-accused Kallu son of Dhara had been murdered about 20 years back during the pendency of this appeal and the Gram Pradhan of his village has fortified his death. The appeal is, therefore, abated in so far as respondent no.2-accused Kallu is concerned. 16. As per reports of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut dated 9.2.2012 and 16.4.2012 respondent-accused Kallu son of Dhara had been murdered about 20 years back during the pendency of this appeal and the Gram Pradhan of his village has fortified his death. The appeal is, therefore, abated in so far as respondent no.2-accused Kallu is concerned. 16. Sri P.K. Singh, Amicus curiae appearing for respondent-accused Omvir has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and submitted that the fields of sugarcane of first informant Sohanvir and the respondents-accused are adjacent to each other; that the first informant and others had removed the mud from the middle doll of these fields which caused ill-will and partibandi in the village resulting in institution of this false case against the accused persons; that Smt. Ram Dei and the first informant had in fact received injuries by falling down from the 'Buggi' when it overturned on the Kharanja; that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses which belie the prosecution case and that the prosecution has made improvements in manner of assault from time to time and as such it has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused persons, hence no interference is required by this Court. 17. Learned Amicus curiae appearing for the respondent-accused has also placed reliance upon the statements of P.Ws.1 to 7 that there is variance in their statements. It is submitted by him that- 18. In his statement Sohanvir ( PW-1), the first informant has assigned the role for beating him and his mother on 12.3.80 by lathis to respondents-accused Dhara, Omvir and Ranvir and Kallu is assigned to have used a 'Gupti' affixed in the lathi. He admitted the fact that the I.O. had recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after 3 days of the incident. 19. Angrez Singh ( PW-2) in his statement has assigned the role of beating with lathis to respondents-accused Dhara, Omvir and Ranvir but has stated that respondent-accused Kallu was armed with 'Ballam' and had caused injuries to Smt. Ram Dei with it i.e. 'Ballam' whereas other accused had beaten her with lathis. Bullan ( PW-3) has stated that respondents-accused Dhara, Omvir and Ranvir were armed with lathis and respondent-accused Kallu was armed with a 'Gupti' affixed in lathi. Bullan ( PW-3) has stated that respondents-accused Dhara, Omvir and Ranvir were armed with lathis and respondent-accused Kallu was armed with a 'Gupti' affixed in lathi. However, Smt. Ram Dei ( PW-4) in her statement has described the manner of incident being beaten by accused persons Dhara, Omvir and Ranvir by lathi and that accused Kallu had injured her by 'Gupti' wali 'lathi' affixed which struck on her head. Her statement was recorded by the I.O. in hospital after six days of the incident yet she did not disclose the fact to him thawt she had been injured by 'Gupti wali 'lathi' used by Kallu. 20. Dr. D.C. Gupta ( PW-5), who examined the injuries of injured Sohanvir, the first informant ( PW-1) and his mother Smt. Ram Dei on 12.3.1980, gave the description of the injuries as fresh and further stated in his cross-examination that the injured could not have received injury no.'s 1 & 3 by falling on the bricks lying at the spot of the road from a running 'Buggi'. He opined that all the injuries of Smt. Ram Dei were fresh. Injuries nos. 1 and 3 could be caused by blunt object and injury no.2 could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. He proved the injury report ( Ex.Ka-2). The Doctor also opined about the injuries saying that injuries of Sohanvir Singh were simple in nature which could be caused by a blunt object except injury no.2 which was caused by friction against rough object. 21. Dr. N.S. Pal ( PW-6), who was posted as Radiologist at P.L. Sharma Hospital, Meerut deposed that he has conducted the x-ray of skull of Smt. Ram Dei on 1.4.1980. As per x-ray report ( Ex.Ka-4) a multiple fracture of skull bone was found. In his cross-examination he stated that x-ray is of more than 15 days of the incident; that callous formation depends upon the age of the injured and the fracture as in the x-ray plate is possible if the injured falls on his head on a hard surface from a height or falls by force and is also possible by a lathi or even a sharp edged weapon. 22. The Investigating Officer died during the pendency of the trial, hence, the charge sheet ( Ex.Ka-10) and other documents such as site plan ( Ex.Ka-11) etc. 22. The Investigating Officer died during the pendency of the trial, hence, the charge sheet ( Ex.Ka-10) and other documents such as site plan ( Ex.Ka-11) etc. were proved by Sri Har Saran Sharma as PW-7, who was posted with the I.O. in his lifetime. 23. Before discussing the matter we may in order to appreciate the approach of the Court below as to how the findings of acquittal have been arrived at by it. In this regard paragraph nos. 10 to 13 of the judgment of the trial Court are reproduced below for ready reference. "10. Sohanvir ( P.W.1) has deposed that accused Dhara, Ombir and Ranbir were armed with lathies and accused Kalu was armed with a 'Gupti Wali Lathi'. Accused persons started beating him and his mother with lathies and accused Kalu beat his mother with 'Gupti Wali Lathi'. The witness has admitted in his cross-examination that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement three days after the occurrence. In the F.I.R. as well as in the statements given before the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the witness did not disclose which of the accused was armed with which weapon. In the F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the accused persons beat the complainant and his mother with Lathies. The fact of beating by a 'Guptidar Lathi' by accused Kalu has not been disclosed in the F.I.R. nor to the Investigating Officer. Similarly, the witness Bhullan Singh ( P.W.3) has deposed that the accused Dhara, Ombir and Ranbir were armed with 'Lathies' and accused Kalu was armed with a 'Gupti Wali Lathi'. The witness Angrez Singh ( P.W.2) has deposed that accused Kalu was armed with a Ballam and he had caused hurt to Ram Dei by striking with Ballam and other accused persons had beaten her with Lathies and fists. Ram Dei ( P.W.4) has deposed that accused Kalu had struck her in her head by 'Gupti Wali Lathi'. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she had seen the 'Gupti Wali Lathi' in the hand of accused Kalu. The statement of Ram Dei had been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the hospital after six days of the incident, but she did not disclose to the Investigating Officer that accused Kalu had struck her with a 'Guptidar Lathi'. In her cross-examination she has deposed that she had seen the 'Gupti Wali Lathi' in the hand of accused Kalu. The statement of Ram Dei had been recorded by the Investigating Officer in the hospital after six days of the incident, but she did not disclose to the Investigating Officer that accused Kalu had struck her with a 'Guptidar Lathi'. The two injured persons as well as the two eye witnesses examined in the case did not disclose to the Investigating Officer that the accused Kalu was armed with a 'Guptidar Lathi'. All of them had deposed before the Investigating Officer that accused Dhara was armed with a 'Tabal'. The substantial improvement in the testimony of the eye witnesses shows that they are deeply interested against the accused persons. Bhullan Singh ( P.W.3) has admitted that accused Dhara and Begraj, the father of the complainant Sohanvir, were accused in separate murder trials. The complainant on account of old enmity has a grudge to depose against the accused persons, therefore, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses has to be carefully scrutinized. 11. Sohanvir ( P.W.1) admits that the F.I.R. had been written at the police station in the presence of the Head Constable and two constables but the place of occurrence does not find mention in the F.I.R. P.W. 1 Sohanvir has deposed that the accused persons had come at the spot from the southern direction and had run away after beating towards the southern direction. Similarly, other witnesses have also deposed that the accused persons had come from the southern direction. In the site plan Ext. Ka-11 the Investigating Officer has shown the passage from which the accused persons came at the spot towards the northern direction. The discrepancy in the site plan and the statements of the witnesses has not been explained by the prosecution. The discrepancy or improvement in the statements of the prosecution witnesses creates doubt as to the truthfulness of the prosecution story. 12. The motive behind the 'marpeet' as mentioned in the F.I.R. is that the sons of the accused persons had cut sugarcane from the plot of the complainant and on his interruption they had beaten him and when on the next day the complainant along with his mother and others had been going to lodge a report at the police station, the accused persons again beat the complainant and his mother with 'Lathies'. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that the accused Dhara owns 40 or 50 bigha agricultural land and a tubewell. It has been admitted that on the date of occurrence sugarcane crop was existing in one plot of land of accused Dhara. Keeping in view the fact that sugarcane crop existed in the plot of Dhara the motive as narrated in the F.I.R. does not seem believable. It has been stated by the prosecution witnesses that the 'marpeet' took place when the complainant Sohanvir along with his mother and others had been going to the police station to lodge a report. It has been stated by Sohanvir ( P.W.1) in para 8 of his statement from the bus-stand a Pakka road goes to the Doghat police station. He has deposed that from his house no passage by Buggi goes to the bus-stand through the frontage of the gher of Sardarey. P.W. 2 Angrez Singh has admitted in paragraph 4 of his cross-examination that from the place of occurrence no direct passage goes to the police station Doghat. Considering this testimony of the prosecution witnesses the version of the prosecution that the complainant and others had been going through that passage to the police station Doghat, seems improbable. There are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the place from which they witnessed the occurrence. Angrez Zingh ( P.W.2) has deposed that he along with other witnesses was sitting at the door of the gher of Sardarey. Bhullan Singh ( P.W.3) has deposed that he and other witnesses were sitting outside the door of the gher of Sardarey. Smt. Ram Dei ( P.W. 4) has deposed that the witnesses were sitting on the Chabootra outside the gher of Sardarey. These discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses prove that they are inimically deposing against the accused persons. 13. All the witnesses have admitted that the occurrence took place at the 'Kharanja' of the road. It has been suggested to the prosecution witnesses by the defence counsel that Smt. Ram Dei had fallen from the 'Buggi' at the 'Kharanja' while she had been going to take fodder from her plot along with her son in 'Bugg' and Sohanvir received injuries in controlling the 'Jhota' of the 'Buggi'. Dr. It has been suggested to the prosecution witnesses by the defence counsel that Smt. Ram Dei had fallen from the 'Buggi' at the 'Kharanja' while she had been going to take fodder from her plot along with her son in 'Bugg' and Sohanvir received injuries in controlling the 'Jhota' of the 'Buggi'. Dr. D.C. Gupta ( P.W. 5) has deposed that injuries 1 to 3 cannot be sustained by falling over the 'Kharanja' of bricks. Dr. N.S. Pal Radiologist ( P.W. 6) has admitted in his cross-examination that the type of fracture which was caused to Smt. Ram Dei can happen by falling on a hard surface from a height from the side of skull or by falling with force. Dr. D.C. Gupta has deposed that the injuries sustained by the complainant are possible by falling over the Kharanja. The injuries sustained by the complainant and his mother have been sufficiently explained by the accused persons." 24. After appraisal of the evidence and arguments of the parties' counsel we are of the view that there is unexplained variance in the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. The first incident of beating of Sohanvir son of Begraj Singh Jat with bricks by the sons of Dhara is said to have taken place on 11.3.1980 in the agricultural field of the first informant. No FIR of the said incident was lodged by him or on his behalf on that date. 25. The second incident of beating of the first informant and his mother is said to have taken place on 12.3.80 in front of house of Sardar son of Uma Rao, who is said to be a witness of the incident along with Bhullan son of Kanak Singh and Angrez Singh son of Kadam Singh but Sardar Singh was not examined by the prosecution. The FIR dated 12.3.80 in which the incident of 11.3.80 is also narrated, is reproduced below for ready reference. The FIR dated 12.3.80 in which the incident of 11.3.80 is also narrated, is reproduced below for ready reference. ^^lsok esa] Jheku dksroky lkgc Fkkuk&nks?kV esjB fuosnu ;g gS fd gekjk vkSj gekjs xkWo ds/kkjk ,l@vks- jke flag tkV ds [ksr ikl ikl gSA gekjs [ksr esa bZ[k [kM+h gqbZ gSA dy rk0 11-3-80 dks 'kke 5 cts/kkjk ds yM+ds dkyw o vkseohj us gekjs [ksr esa ls xUus rksM+ fy;s Fks geus xUus rksM+us ls euk fd;k rks/kkjk ,l-@vks- jke flag o/kkjk ds rhuksa yM+ds dkyw vkseohj o j.kohj us eq>s bZaVks ls ekjk ftlls esjs lj esa dkQh pksV vkbZ vkSj eSa csgks'k gksdj fxj x;k rFkk eq>s/kkSl nh fd vxj fjiksVZ fy[kkus x;k rks rqEgs tku ls ekj nsxsA vkt lqcg djhc 8 cts eSa viuh ekW Jherh jkensbZ o xkao ds vius dqVEch;ksa dks cksXxh ds lkFk ysdj fjiksVZ dks vk jgk Fkk rks mijksDr vknfe;ksa us esjh ekrk o eq>s fQj nksckjk ykfB;ksa ls ekjk fiVk esjh ekrk ds lj rFkk vkW[k esa rFkk esjs pksV vkbZ gekjs xkao ds ljnkj ,l-@vks- mejko] HkqYyu ,l-@vks- dud flag] vaxzst flag ,l-@vks- dne flag]/kkjk ,l-@vks- fjlky tks ogh ekStwn Fks mUgksus eq>s rFkk esjh ekW dks cpk;k eSa viuh ekW dks cksXxh esa Mkydj fjiksVZ fy[kkus dks vk;k gWw vki fjiksVZ fy[kus dh d`ik djsaA izkFkhZ lksgu ohj flag ,l-@vks- osxjkt flg tkV xkao iqlkj Fkkuk&nks?kV rk- 12-3-80 ftyk&esjB @;w-ih-@ " 26. It appears from the reading of the FIR dated 12.3.80 that the first incident had taken place on 11.3.80 when the complainant is said to have beaten by Dhara son of Ram Singh Jat and his sons Kallu and Omvir at about 5.00 P.M. in the evening at their agricultural fields which are adjacent to each other. It is alleged in the FIR that in that incident on 11.3.80 all the three sons of Dhara namely, Kallu, Omvir and Ranvir had hit the first informant on his head by bricks, as a result of which he fell unconscious and had gone away threatening that in case he reports the matter to the police, the complainant will face dire consequences. 27. 27. There is no explanation as to why no report of the first incident of 'marpit' on 11.3.80 was lodged by any one from the side of Sohanvir Singh and how did the respondents-accused persons knew that he along with his mother and relatives was going to lodge the report of the said incident at 8.00 A.M. on 12.3.80. From a perusal of the FIR, the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and from the impugned judgment, the role of the accused persons in the incident of 12.3.80 and weapons assigned to them are not consistent. It appears from the record that the statement of Smt. Ram Dei ( PW-4) was taken after 6 days of the incident and that of Sohanvir Singh ( PW-1) after 3 days of the occurrence for which delay also, there is no explanation. The enmity between the parties is admitted to them, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly proceeded with caution in appreciation of the statements of witnesses. It has noted from the statement of Sohanvir ( PW-1) that FIR had been written at the police station and in presence of two constables but strangely enough the place of occurrence does not find mention in it rather his statement is against the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot. P.W.1 has deposed that the accused persons had come at the spot from the southern direction and had run away after beating in the same direction. The other witnesses have also deposed to the same effect but in the site plan the I.O. had shown the passage from where the accused persons are said to have come at the spot, from the northern direction. These discrepancies in the site plan and the statements of the witnesses could not be explained by the prosecution. The discrepancy in the site plan has not been explained by the prosecution rather the case has been subsequently improved by it by introducing 'Tabal' in place of 'Ballam' and assigning different weapon to the assailant Kallu from time to time, which have rightly gone deep into the mind of the learned trial Court to doubt the story and the manner in which the incident is said to have taken place. There is also doubt about the place of the occurrence, which is apparent from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses noted by the learned trial Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 of its impugned order quoted in the body of this judgment. 28. As regards motive, the learned trial Judge found that it was weak and unbelievable. Both the parties had their agricultural lands adjacent to each other on which sugarcane crop was standing. From the statements of the eye-witnesses of the incident/occurrence it is apparent that the incident took place on 12.3.80 when the first informant along with his mother is said to have been going to the police station for lodging the report. The learned trial Court has noted that the witnesses were inimical to the respondents-accused who also admitted that the occurrence took place at the 'Kharanja' of the road. Taking note of the fact it was suggested to the prosecution witnesses by the defence that Smt. Ram Dei received injuries by falling from the 'Buggi' on the 'kharanja' of the road while she was going to take fodder from her plot along with her son in the 'Buggi'; that they had received injuries when the first informant lost control of "Jhota" which resulted in the 'Buggi' going out of control. This suggestion read with the statements of Dr. D.C. Gupta ( PW-5) and Dr. N.S.Pal ( PW-6) that the type of fracture which was caused to Smt. Ram Dei could have been caused by overturning of the 'Buggi' or falling down from the 'Buggi' over the 'kharanja' of the road from a height on the side of the skull. The injured had received all the injuries only on the one side of the face. Therefore, the story of the prosecution that they were beaten by four accused persons on the same side of the face by lathis and spear appears to be improbable as it is not their case that they were beaten when they had taken on one side of their face. 29. For all the reasons stated above it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are improbable or that no reasonable man could have arrived to those conclusions. The learned AGA has failed to assail the impugned judgment on the grounds of appeal. 29. For all the reasons stated above it cannot be said that the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are improbable or that no reasonable man could have arrived to those conclusions. The learned AGA has failed to assail the impugned judgment on the grounds of appeal. In the circumstances, we uphold the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. Respondent-accused Omvir is on bail. He needs not to surrender. His bail-bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 30. Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate appointed as Amicus curiae to conduct the case on behalf of respondent-accused Omvir would get Rs.2100/- as his remuneration fee within a period of two weeks from today.