JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J. 1. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th July, 2011 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2009 is called in question in this appeal by the State. The accused are tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326,448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W. 1-Mohammed (injured) was working in beedi shop of P.W. 5; the said shop is located in Panchavati Complex situated at Kalladka Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District; on 16-9-2008 at about 8.15 a.m. he (P.W. 1) came to the shop and opened the shutters of the shop and was keeping beedis inside the shop; at that time, he was alone in the shop and was facing towards the wall; the accused trespassed into the said shop; one of the accused assaulted P.W. 1 with chopper and in order to avoid the assault, P.W. 1 brought his right hand, consequent upon which he sustained injury on his right hand; one of the accused assaulted with club and another accused assaulted with chopper; P.W. 1 raised hue and cry and fell down on the ground; the accused ran away from the scene; immediately thereafter P.W. 5 as well as the Police rushed to the spot and took the injured (P.W. 1) to Pushparaj Hospital at Kalladka Village in the first instance and thereafter he was shifted to Unity Hospital, Mangalore. The complaint of the Police was recorded in the Unity Hospital, Mangalore from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on 16-9-2008 and the same came to be registered in Crime No. 153 of 2008 by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W. 11. After completion of investigation, the Police laid the charge-sheet against the three accused. It is relevant to note that in the complaint, the complainant/injured has not mentioned the name of any of the accused. There is nothing in the complaint that he identified the accused. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 9 exhibits and 5 material objects. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the accused. 2. There is nothing in the complaint that he identified the accused. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses and got marked 9 exhibits and 5 material objects. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record, acquitted the accused. 2. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State argued that the evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with the evidence of P.W. 4 and the evidence of the doctor-P.W. 10 is sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused; since the injured has sustained one grievous injury, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused at least for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. He further submits that no valid reasons are assigned to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1. On these, among other grounds, he prays for setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. 3. P.W. 1 is the injured eye-witness. He has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 1. He is examined by the doctor-P.W. 10. The wound certificate issued by the doctor is at Ex. P. 6, which discloses that the injured (P.W. 1) has sustained six injuries. P.W. 2 is the witness for seizure panchanama-Ex. P. 2 under which M.Os. 3 and 4-bloodstained clothes of the deceased were seized. However he has deposed that after hearing the cries, he went to the scene of offence and saw the incident of assault. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are said to be the eye-witnesses. Though P.W. 3 has deposed about certain facts in his examination-in-chief, he did not turn up before the Court for being cross-examined. Therefore his evidence is of no use to either of the parties. P.W. 5 is the employer of P.W. 1. He came immediately after the incident and shifted the injured to the hospital with the assistance of the Police. P.W. 6 is the Scientific Officer working in Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalore and on examining the material sent to her for examination, she has given the report as per Exs. P. 4 and P. 5. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the witnesses for scene of offence panchanama-Ex. P. 3. M.Os. 1 to 3 were seized from the spot. P.W. 10 is the Doctor who treated the victim and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P. 6. P. 4 and P. 5. P.Ws. 8 and 9 are the witnesses for scene of offence panchanama-Ex. P. 3. M.Os. 1 to 3 were seized from the spot. P.W. 10 is the Doctor who treated the victim and issued the wound certificate as per Ex. P. 6. P.W. 11 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the victim as per Ex. P. 1, based on which crime came to be registered. Rest of the witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 7, 12 and 13 are Police officials. Their evidence may not be of much importance to decide the appeal on the aspect of involvement of the accused herein in crime. 4. Before proceeding further, we wish to decide as to whether P.W. 1 has sustained grievous injury or not. In order to prove the said aspect, the prosecution has led the evidence of Dr. Udaya Kumar-P.W. 10, who examined P.W. 1 and has relied upon Ex. P. 6-wound certificate issued by P.W. 1. Ex. P. 6 as well as evidence of P.W. 10 discloses that P.W. 1-injured has sustained six injuries. The Doctor has opined that injury 1 is grievous in nature and rest of the injuries are simple. Injury 1 is as under: 1. Cut wound right hand with cut tendons (4 x 1 x muscle deep); The evidence of Doctor-P.W. 10 clarifies that all the injuries mentioned in Ex. P. 6 sustained by P.W. 1 are clean cut injuries and they cannot be caused by assault with iron rod and they can be caused only with a sharp edged weapon. It is further clarified by the Doctor that the aforementioned injury would take two weeks' time to heal and whereas rest of the injuries would take four to five days for healing. Section 320 of IPC prescribes eight kinds of hurt which are designated as 'Grievous hurt'. Neither of the injuries including the aforementioned (so-called grievous injury) falls within any of the eight categories mentioned under Section 320 of IPC. The 8th category mentioned in Section 320 discloses any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits can be categorised as a grievous hurt. The 8th category mentioned in Section 320 discloses any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits can be categorised as a grievous hurt. In the matter on hand, there is nothing on record to show that P.W. 1 has suffered hurt which endangers his life or has suffered hurt which caused sufferer to be during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain or the sufferer is unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for about 20 days. In view of clear admission by the Doctor-P.W. 10 that the first injury would have taken about two weeks' time for healing, the said injury does not fall within any of the eight categories mentioned in Section 320 of IPC. Since none of the injuries sustained by the victim are grievous injuries, the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 would not life. At the most, the accused can be said to have committed offence under Section 324 of IPC (subject to prosecution proving it's case on merits of the matter). 5. Coming to the merits of the matter, we do not find any ground to disagree with the conclusion reached by the Trial Court, inasmuch as, the Trial Court has assessed the entire evidence on record in proper perspective while coming to the conclusion. Though P.Ws. 3 and 4, who are projected to be the eye-witnesses by the prosecution, the evidence of P.W. 3 is of no use, inasmuch as, he has not tendered himself for cross-examination. Therefore, his evidence in chief examination cannot be relied upon in the matter on hand. The presence of P.W. 4 is absolutely doubtful at the scene of offence at a particular time. The injured P.W. 1 had deposed that when he was busy in his beedi shop arranging beedi bundles facing towards wall, the incident has taken place. Immediately after the incident, the police as well as P.W. 5 rushed to the spot and shifted him to the hospital. P.W. 4 is none other than brother-in-law of P.W. 1. The injured P.W. 1 had deposed that when he was busy in his beedi shop arranging beedi bundles facing towards wall, the incident has taken place. Immediately after the incident, the police as well as P.W. 5 rushed to the spot and shifted him to the hospital. P.W. 4 is none other than brother-in-law of P.W. 1. Though P.W. 4 has deposed that he had come to the spot immediately after hearing cries and he saw the entire incident and only thereafter P.W. 5 and the police came, such evidence of P.W. 4 is belied in view of specific admission made by P.W. 1 that he saw only P.W. 5-police and other friends and not P.W. 4. Even P.W. 5-employer of P.W. 1 has admitted in the cross-examination that he came to the spot first and shifted the victim to the hospital, which means, when P.W. 5 came to the spot, nobody including P.W. 4 was present. However, according to P.W. 1, it was police who came to the spot first and thereafter P.W. 5 came to the spot. It is also deposition of P.W. 1 that P.W. 5 was also assaulted by police in lathi-charge and he also sustained minor injuries. No whisper is made about the presence of P.W. 4 either by P.W. 1 or P.W. 5 on the spot during the relevant point of time. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is justified in concluding that P.W. 4 may not be the eye-witness to the incident. We fully agree with the said reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court. 6. P.W. 5-employer of P.W. 4 has deposed that immediately after the incident, he heard cries and rushed to the spot and by that time, the injured had fallen down; he was the first man to arrive at the scene and sought for help of the police and police immediately came to the spot and injured was shifted to the hospital. Thus the evidence of P.W. 5 also appears to be exaggerated, inasmuch as, P.W. 1 has clearly admitted that it was police who came to the spot immediately after the incident and prior to coming to the spot, P.W. 5 was assaulted by the police in a lathi-charge at a different place. Thus the evidence of P.W. 5 also appears to be exaggerated, inasmuch as, P.W. 1 has clearly admitted that it was police who came to the spot immediately after the incident and prior to coming to the spot, P.W. 5 was assaulted by the police in a lathi-charge at a different place. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 5 that he saw the accused running away from the scene also appears to be suspicious. Consequently, he is unreliable. 7. The material on record specifies that lathi-charge had taken place in the area in question, wherein the shop of P.W. 1 is situated. There was communal clash between two groups. Hence, there was total confusion in the area during the relevant point of time. P.W. 5 was also assaulted by the Police in the said lathi-charge; and in the process, some miscreants have entered the shop of P.W. 1 and assaulted him with sharp cutting weapon. It is specific version of P.W. 1 before the Court that while he was facing wall, arranging beedi bundles in the shop, the very three miscreants entered the shop and assaulted him from behind and he did not know the names of any of the three miscreants. A complaint came to the lodged by P.W. 1 between 4.00 to 5.00 p.m. on 16-9-2008. The incident has taken place at 9.30 a.m. P.W. 1 alone was present in the shop. Such three persons who entered the shop were covering their head and upper portion of the face with red shawl. Two persons assaulted him with choppers and whereas, one person assaulted him with iron rod. Names of any of the accused are not forthcoming in the complaint, which means, the complainant did not identify any of the accused. Even in examination-in-chief, P.W. 1 has proceeded to narrate about the incident that three miscreants entered his shop and assaulted him. However, in the last paragraph, in the examination-in-chief, he has deposed that the persons who are present before the Court have assaulted him. He has identified the accused in the Court for the first time. Further, it is admitted in examination-in-chief by P.W. 1 that he does not know as to what is the reason for his assault by the accused. He has identified the accused in the Court for the first time. Further, it is admitted in examination-in-chief by P.W. 1 that he does not know as to what is the reason for his assault by the accused. In paragraph 21 of his evidence, P.W. 1 has clearly admitted that he could not identify any of the three miscreants, inasmuch as, they had covered their faces with red turmeric coloured clothes. In view of this clear admission of P.W. 1, we are of the opinion that the evidence of P.W. 1 also can be of no use for bringing home guilt against the accused. Since identify of the accused itself is doubtful, the Trial Court is justified in giving benefit of doubt to the accused. On reconsidering the entire material on record, we do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Court acquitting the accused is the possible view under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.