JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2006 is preferred by the State of Gujarat under section 378[1](3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC" for short] against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21st October 2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 75 of 1997 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge & 4th Fast Track Judge, Junagadh whereby the respondents are acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act by giving benefit of doubt. 1.1 Whereas, Criminal Revision Application No. 873 of 2004 is preferred by the petitioner-original complainant under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC against the very judgment and order of acquittal, to which reference is made hereinabove. 1.2 At the outset, it needs to be mention that since the respondent No. 3 is reported to have passed away during pending of this Appeal, hence the present proceedings qua him stood abated. 2. Short facts giving rise to both the above proceedings are as under:- 2.1 That charge came to be framed by the learned trial Judge in the backdrop of filing of the chargesheet and genesis is in the incident which took place on 30th January 1997 at around 18:00 hours when the accused respondents had gone to the office of Capt. Satish -brother of the complainant, situated at Kalva Chowk, Vishal Tower, Jungadh and started ransacking furniture, etc., of his office and given foul abuses to witness Kanji Bhikhu - a peon in the office. The said Kanji Bhikhu went to a nearby PCO and telephoned at the residence of his master viz. Capt. Satish. Immediately, two persons namely Rajesh Nagdanbhai Gohil and Mansukhlal @ Bavan Rameshchandra Ahir [complainant] came there on a Luna Moped and when Rajesh was parking the vehicle and Mansukhlal-complainant climbing the stair case of the office, Rajesh was assaulted by the assailants. Mansukhlal @ Bavanbhai complainant intervened and caught hold one of the assailants A1 and in the meanwhile, other two persons also started assailing Rajesh and caused injuries by knife on chest and backside, which were of serious nature and injured was taken to hospital in an auto rickshaw by a Police Constable Dhirubhai and Mansuklal-complainant also accompanied him. Mansukhlal @ Bavanbhai complainant intervened and caught hold one of the assailants A1 and in the meanwhile, other two persons also started assailing Rajesh and caused injuries by knife on chest and backside, which were of serious nature and injured was taken to hospital in an auto rickshaw by a Police Constable Dhirubhai and Mansuklal-complainant also accompanied him. The injured Rajesh was brought to the Hospital at around 18:30 hours and soon a complaint came to be lodged, being C.R No. 44/1997 before the Junagadh City Police Station. At the end of investigation and filing of the chargesheet, as the case was triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh as per Section 209 CrPC on 29th April 1997. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and produced seventeen documentary evidences and after recording statements under Section 313 CrPC, the learned Judge found failure on the part of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly, the respondents came to be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin has taken us to the evidence and submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have believed in toto, the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Ashok Narhari, the Medical Officer of Government Hospital at Junagadh who was examined vide Exh. 13 and deposed that while he was discharging his duties on 30th January 1997, Rajesh Nagdanbhai Gohil was brought before him in an injured condition and was admitted in Surgical Ward for treatment. However, for better treatment and looking to nature of injuries, he was referred to Civil Hospital, Rajkot and in his testimonies above, witness has clearly deposed that four external injuries over the person of the injured may be caused by sharp cutting instrument and possibility of usage of knife for inflicting such injuries was not ruled out. It was further opined that three injuries were serious in nature and on the vital parts of the body and if prompt and timely treatment is not given, patient or injured person could succumb to injuries was also not ruled out. Likewise, another PW-10 Mansukh Rameshchandra at Exh. 46, complainant and who also happens to be brother of Capt. It was further opined that three injuries were serious in nature and on the vital parts of the body and if prompt and timely treatment is not given, patient or injured person could succumb to injuries was also not ruled out. Likewise, another PW-10 Mansukh Rameshchandra at Exh. 46, complainant and who also happens to be brother of Capt. Satish at whose office incident in question had taken place and witnessed the incident, in his testimonies, it is deposed that upon receiving a telephonic message from peon of the office of Capt. Satish, he alongwith Rajesh immediately reached at the place of incident and when Rajesh was parking the vehicle and while he was going towards office and about to reach the first floor, he heard some noise and upon seeing back, found Rajesh was cornered by three persons who were abusing and asking about Capt. Satish and thereafter they started inflicting knife blows over right shoulder of Rajesh. The complainant Mansukh Rameshchandra caught hold of Anil Kanji, but two other assailants A2 & A3 started giving knife blows over Rajesh and severely injured him. The above witness also described the manner in which injuries were inflicted on the body of the person and usage of knife by the assailant concerned. The very complainant had taken injured to the Government Hospital. Both the above testimonies ought to have been considered in proper perspective since the key witness namely injured Rajesh Nagdanbhai Gohil-PW 11 narrates the manner in which he was assaulted, when he reached the office of Captain Satish upon receiving telephonic message from an office Peon named Kanji. Initially, he was abused and thereafter inflicted repeatedly knife blows over his body on vital parts. The fact about occurrence of incident remained undisputed and in the testimony of Kanji Pandav-office Peon [PW 12 : Exh. 51], the genesis of crime is fully disclosed. It is submitted that the case of prosecution is established by unimpeachable testimonies of the above witnesses duly supported by version of PW-15 Gunvantlal Hiralal, who was serving as Police Sub Inspector at Junagadh Police Station at the relevant point of time and recorded complaint and further of Investigating Officer namely Bhagwanbhai Tabhabhai [PW-17 : Exh. 70]. It is submitted that the case of prosecution is established by unimpeachable testimonies of the above witnesses duly supported by version of PW-15 Gunvantlal Hiralal, who was serving as Police Sub Inspector at Junagadh Police Station at the relevant point of time and recorded complaint and further of Investigating Officer namely Bhagwanbhai Tabhabhai [PW-17 : Exh. 70]. Both the above Police personnels stand by their version and support the case of prosecution and the course of investigation undertaken viz., arrest of the persons and seizure of muddamal articles discovered by drawing panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Though panchas have turned hostile, the contents of panchnama stood proved and minor contradictions, insignificant discrepancies, trivial inconsistencies and inconsequential omissions in testimonies of above witnesses ought not to have weighed with the learned trial Judge while ordering acquittal of the respondents, who were involved in a serious offence. 3.1 Learned PP has also taken us to the evidence in the form of medico legal case paper, noting of the concerned Medical Officers of Government Hospital, Junagadh and Civil Hospital, Rajkot about no question being asked by the Medical Officer at Junagadh and Civil Hospital, Rajkot about the names of assailants, by drawing our attention to the report of FSL whereby, the blood contained shown is Group-B on various articles; including earth from the scene of offence, shirt and baniyan of the injured and on discovered articles viz., three knifes used by A1, A2 and A3 containing the above Group-B of injured and thus submitted that the present is the case fully established by the prosecution based on testimonies of eye witness, well supported by Medical and FSL evidence. But, on appreciation thereof, it has resulted into acquittal of the respondents, which warrants interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 378[1](3) read with Section 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal and to convict them for the charge levelled against them and sentencing them appropriately in accordance with law. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Zalak Pipaliya, learned advocate for the complainant in Criminal Revision Application No. 873 of 2004 has adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned PP and submitted that the acquittal order passed by the learned trial Judge has resulted into miscarriage of justice as substantial and vital part of the testimonies of witnesses have been ignored by placing reliance on the so-called contradictions, discrepancies and minor improvements. It is submitted that Criminal Revision Application preferred by the complainant under Section 379 read with Section 401 CrPC deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned advocates Mr. Premal S. Rachh and Mr. Param R. Buch appearing for the respective respondents would contend that in absence of there being any error either on law or on facts, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is not contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Further, the evidence appreciated by the learned trial Judge is not per verse calling for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 378 read with Section 383 CrPC, as circumscribed by the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions that once innocence of the guilt is established at the end of trial, presumption that person is innocent till proved guilty unless convicted by the Court gets reinforced by the judgment and order of acquittal and the view taken by the trial Court is one of the possible views, even if this Court has a different view, the view that is taken by the trial Court acquitting the accused need not be reversed. 6. Learned advocates appearing for the respondents have taken us to the testimonies of all the panchs, upon which reliance is placed by the learned PP and submitted that one of the basic lacunae in the case of prosecution is that the injured eye-witness PW-11 Rajesh Nagdanbhai Gohil is a lawyer by profession and brother-in-law of Captain Satish, who happen to be President of Junagadh Nagar Palika, when the incident had taken place is full of discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradictions, if their testimonies are considered in juxtaposition to independent witnesses like Dr. Ashok Narhari [PW-1 : Exh. 13], Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Junagadh and Dr. Devendrabhai Babulal Dekithadiya [PW-13 : Exh. 56], Cardio Surgeon, Rajkot. Ashok Narhari [PW-1 : Exh. 13], Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Junagadh and Dr. Devendrabhai Babulal Dekithadiya [PW-13 : Exh. 56], Cardio Surgeon, Rajkot. It is submitted that the above two Doctors in no uncertain terms stated that the injured Rajesh Nagdhanbhai Gohil [PW-11] failed to disclose name of assailants, though asked. By drawing our attention to the testimonies of both the above Doctors, it is submitted that the injured witness had not disclosed correct facts about the manner in which incident had taken place and who were the assailants. Our attention is also drawn to the statement of the injured recorded as a Dying Declaration, in which, for the first time, names of the assailants were disclosed. The above version of injured Rajesh, if considered along with testimonies of complainant and allegations in the complaint, Mansukhlal-complainant states that names of each assailant was disclosed by Rajesh in an auto rickshaw, he was being taken to Government Hospital, Junagadh, and accordingly, in a complaint filed around 19:50 hours, such names were stated. However, one of the important and independent witness Dhirubhai, a Police Constable who had taken injured to Government Hospital, Junagadh was not examined and such non examination of police personnel assumes important significance. Further, as per version of Dr. Ashok Narhari [PW-1 : Exh. 13], only Dhirubhai-Police Constable has accompanied injured Rajesh and no other person was there. That creates doubt in respect of truthfulness, credibility and trust worthiness of the complainant and that of the injured-Rajesh, though he knew the assailants by name, failed to disclose the same before the Medical Officer of Government Hospital at Junagadh. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Ranchh has taken us to testimonies of other witnesses; including Mansukhbhai @ Bhavanjibhai [PW-10] who also happens to be the complainant and claims to have accompanied injured Rajesh alongwith constable Dhirubhai to Government Hospital, Junagadh and Rajesh-injured [PW-11] had disclosed names of the accused on the way to Hospital. It is thus submitted that the version of said complainant [PW-10] and injured-Rajesh [PW-11] is full of contradictions about disclosure of names of the assailants. It is submitted that injured Rajesh [PW-11] knew all the assailants, but had not disclosed their names before Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Junagadh and also to Dr. Devendrabhai Babulal Dekithadiya [PW-13], a Cardio Surgeon, Rajkot. It is submitted that injured Rajesh [PW-11] knew all the assailants, but had not disclosed their names before Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Junagadh and also to Dr. Devendrabhai Babulal Dekithadiya [PW-13], a Cardio Surgeon, Rajkot. Meanwhile, complaint is lodged at around 19:50 hours in which complainant had stated that names were disclosed by injured Rajesh, while he was taken to Government Hospital in an auto rickshaw. It is also submitted that the trial Court from para-23 onwards of its judgment has given reasons for not believing the case of prosecution and false implications accused at behest of Captain Satish, the then President of Jungadh Nagar Palika, with whom the accused had differences arising out of business transactions. Alongwith the above, the so-called Dying Declaration also creates doubt, which was recorded at 00:30 minutes on 31st January 1997. 8. Thus, it is submitted that there are full of discrepancies about the manner in which incident had taken place and involvement of assailants, and secondly, the order of trial Court is based on reasonings, for which a view which is also possible taken by the trial Court about no guilt of the respondents herein, resulting into acquittal, do not need any interference and therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned PP Mr. Mitesh Amin has further submitted that in his re-joiner that minor contradictions and a little embellishment on the part of injured-Rajesh [PW-11] about naming third accused belatedly may be discarded, but remaining evidences nail at A1 & A2, and therefore, conviction can be recorded and they be sentenced as prescribed under the Statute. 10. Having addressed ourselves to the submissions made by learned PP and learned advocates appearing for the defence and learned advocate for the complainant as well in the accompanying Criminal Revision Application, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the submissions of learned PP in as much as for every oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has given specific finding, based on just and proper reasonings and a conclusion is drawn out in respect of innocence of the accused which do not warrant any interference by this Court. We are convinced and in agreement with the findings of the trial Court in as much as injured-Rajesh [PW-11] who knew the assailants from the beginning had not disclosed their names before the Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Junagdh as well as before a Doctor of Private Hospital at Rajkot. Such conduct of the injured appears to be unnatural. In a given case, not naming the assailants at the first available opportunity may not be harmful to the case of the prosecution, but in the facts of this case, other circumstances viz., failure on the part of prosecution to examine Dhirubhai, a Police Constable who reached immediately after the occurrence of the crime and also accompanied injured-Rajesh with Mansukhbhai, complainant in an auto rickshaw for medical treatment at Government Hospital, Junagadh was not examined and it creates doubt about fair and transparent investigation. Dhirubhai, a Police Constable could have strengthened the case of prosecution about disclosure of names by Rajesh to Manuskhbhai complainant who said that in a rickshaw when injured Rajesh was taken to hospital, names of assailants were disclosed to him. Further, in the evening hours at 18:00, in one of the busiest area of Junagadh city where office of Captain Satish was situated, number of persons had gathered and witnessed the incident. However, except close relatives of Captain Satish and injured-Rajesh, no independent witness was examined. That submissions of Mr. Mitesh Amin about testimonies of injured Rajesh will be sufficient enough to bring home guilt of the accused, since such injuries had found place in the medical certificate issued and deposed by the concerned Medical Officer and a private Doctor and possibility of such injuries caused by articles seized and shown to the medical witnesses coupled with injuries were sufficient enough to cause death, if timely treatment is not given, ordinarily, we would have accepted being settled position of law, but the very involvement of the accused creates suspicion as material contradictions appear in testimonies of complainant, injured eye-witness and Kanjibhai, an office peon, if seen in juxtaposition to testimonies of independent medical witnesses viz., PW-1 & PW-3 about none disclosure of names of the assailants by the injured, which weakens the case of prosecution. Along with material contradictions in such testimonies, vital omissions also appear and many things stated in testimonies by the complainant and injured Rajesh are not found in the complaint, for which trial Court has given reasons for not believing the eye witnesses and injured witness, in para 45 as the judgment 31 & 32 which cannot be said to be in any manner contrary to law or substantially deviating or ignoring the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. 11. In the case of Kishansingh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [19943 CRI.LJ 3503] (sic) [1994 Cri.L.J. 3503] in which unexplained delay in recording statement of injured co-accused and shifting his stand regarding identity of accused, place of occurrence, etc., was not treated as simple and straightaway statement and evidence of other witnesses was found to be not reliable, such evidence of injured witnesses viz., husband in the said case was held to be not reliable and accused was entitled for acquittal. 11.1 That in the case of State of Gujarat v. Suraj alias Shant Pannabhai Solanki & Anr., 2013 Cri.L.J. 356 where credibility of eye witness when entire prosecution case was based on sole testimony of eye witness, who happened to be brother of the deceased and was found not inspiring confidence, conviction on basis of such doubtful evidence was held not proper and accused came to be acquitted. 11.2 Thus, under all circumstances, irrespective of incorrectness, inconsistency, discrepancy and omissions major in nature, version of injured eye witness if turns doubtful, the same is not to be believed. 12. Case laws relied on by the learned advocate for the respondents, to which brief reference is necessary as the same reveals that in exercise of power under Section 378 read with Section 383 CrPC, reversal of acquittal so ordered by the trial Court for which para meters are laid down by the Apex Court and keeping in mind the law, as above, we find no reason to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial Court and accordingly, Appeal as well as Criminal Revision Application fails and the same are dismissed.