JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. In this Criminal Appeal, preferred under Section 378[1](3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["Cr.P.C." for brevity], the State of Gujarat has called in question the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th July 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2004. 2. The facts of the prosecution case may be summarized as under: 3. On 20th February 2004, the complainant-Mahendraray Indradevray Ray has stated by lodging a complaint that on the very day i.e., 20th February 2004, at about 10-00 hours in the morning, he left from Vapi on his motorcycle "Hero Honda" bearing registration number GJ-15-AA-2860 and went to village Talvada. After staying there for about one-and-a half to two hours, when he was going from Talvada to Sarigam on his motorcycle to meet his relatives i.e. nephew Ashokray, Santoshray, Rakeshray and Piyushray and when he reached near Jal Park building on Bhilad-Sarigam road, altercation was going on. Therefore, he stopped his motorcycle there and saw that Ashok Jadav, Hemant @ Lavu Jadav, Dilip Jadav, Ishvar Bhandari, Navin Kahar, Raju Jadav and other five to ten unknown persons-residents of Bhilad were giving blows of hockey, sword and stick to Manojsing Parasnathsing; Udal Jadav; Sitaram Jadav and Brijesh Dablu-residents of Vapi. As he knew Ashok Jadav and whose father's name he did not knew, and Hemant @ Lavu, the complaint told them not to beat them, and this Ashok Jadav and Hemant @ Lavu instigated their accomplice and they started giving him blows with kicks and fists and somebody gave hockey-blow on his right hand, iron rod-blow was given on head and both legs and stones-blow was given. The motorcycle of the complainant was also damaged by pelting stones. As these persons viz., Manojsing Parasnathsing and others of Vapi have come by a Maruti car, their Maruti car was torched and as he was assaulted, the complainant went to a house of one person where he was advised to go to a hospital for treatment, and therefore, he was admitted in Kidlavala Hospital for treatment. 3.1 The complainant has stated that this incident had occurred at about 1-30 hours in the afternoon wherein a Maruti car was also torched and which was bearing registration No. GJ-5-N-462. The complainant has further stated that Manojsing, Parasnathsing, Dablu, Uday, Brijesh, Kallu of Vapi have also sustained injuries. 3.1 The complainant has stated that this incident had occurred at about 1-30 hours in the afternoon wherein a Maruti car was also torched and which was bearing registration No. GJ-5-N-462. The complainant has further stated that Manojsing, Parasnathsing, Dablu, Uday, Brijesh, Kallu of Vapi have also sustained injuries. As Uday Jadav and Sitaram were brought to Kiklawala Hospital for treatment, he sustained injuries with sword near his left knee, his leg was cut and he also sustained major head injuries. He was in unconscious state and taken to Vapi for further treatment. All the aforesaid persons mentioned in the complaint caused injuries to complainant and other persons by inflicting blows of sword, hockey, katta, stick and stones and also damaged motorcycle and torched Maruti Fronty. That, all these assailants came in a Maruti Fronty, bearing registration No. GJ-15-K-8420 and Silver coloured Santro car whereon "Om Sai" was written and remaining three assailants came on a motorcycle. The complainant has stated that his gold chain, watch and a sum of Rs. 9000/- from his pocket have also been looted. The complainant has stated that the cause of this dispute was previous discord. This version of the complainant was recorded by Police Sub Inspector, Bhilad Outpost at Kiklawada Hospital and thereafter investigation into the matter was conducted by PSI-R.R. Patel, who also undertook the exercise of drawing the panchnama of the scene of offence, recording of the statements of the witnesses, etc. The I.O. also conducted search of the house of accused-Hemantbhai on 13th April 2004 from where a pistol was seized under a panchnama and whereas, other accused persons surrendered themselves before the learned JMFC at Umergaon on 22nd March 2004. After the investigation into the offence was over, the Police submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 395, 307, 325, 435, 143, 147, 149 IPC read with Section 24 [1B] & 27[1] of the Arms Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the learned JMFC, Umergaon, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Valsad under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. At trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, and therefore, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced 16 documentary evidence in support of the charges leveled against the accused persons. 5. 4. At trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, and therefore, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced 16 documentary evidence in support of the charges leveled against the accused persons. 5. After recording and considering the statements made under Section 313 CrPC and having heard the respective sides, the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad was pleased to acquit all the accused persons from the charges leveled against them, giving rise to filing of the present Appeal. 6. Heard learned APP Mr. Rutvij Oza appearing for the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for the respondents-original accused. 7. It was urged by the learned APP Mr. Oza that the judgment and order dated 29th July 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2004 is contrary to law, evidence on record of the case. In fact, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. That, the learned trial Judge has erred in appreciating the version of the prosecution witness Satishbhai Harishanker Rai [PW-1 : Exh. 9]; complainant-Mahendra Indradev Rai [PW-5 : Exh. 18]; Manoj Parasnath Singh [PW-6 : Exh. 20]; Injured witness Manoj @ Dablu Suryaban Rai [PW-7 : Exh. 21]; eye witness Rudal Sitaram Jadav [PW-8 : Exh. 22]; another injured witness Brijesh Shankerbhai Jadav [PW-9 : Exh. 23] and medical evidence, particularly of Dr. Dipak Balkrishna Singal [PW-10 : Exh. 24]; Police Inspector of Umergaon Police Station Mr. Rakeshbhai Ramanlal Patel [PW-11 : Exh. 41] and another Police Inspector Shri Amrutbhai Lalubhai Desai [PW-12 : Exh. 43] and other documentary evidence. 8. Learned APP vehemently argued that eye witnesses and injured persons have clearly stated in their respective testimonies before the Court that the accused-respondents herein had on 20th February 2004 came on a motorcycle and at Sarigam Road, near Jal Park Society have started assaulting them. One of the accused persons dragged out Manoj @ Dablu Suryaban Rai [PW-7] and injured witness Manoj Singh from the car and starting assailing them with iron pipe; sword, lathi, etc., resulting into they having received injuries over head and other parts of the body. That the injured Rudal Sitaram Jadav [PW-8] another injured witness Brijesh Shankerbhai Jadav [PW-9] were also assaulted by sword by the accused persons. Thereafter, these accused persons set ablaze the maruti car. That the injured Rudal Sitaram Jadav [PW-8] another injured witness Brijesh Shankerbhai Jadav [PW-9] were also assaulted by sword by the accused persons. Thereafter, these accused persons set ablaze the maruti car. That, all the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution have identified the accused before the Court. That, currency notes worth Rs. 3,000/- and a wrest watch of Manoj Singh was snatched away by somebody in the scuffle. According to the learned APP, all these witnesses have extended support to the case of prosecution stating that they were stopped on way near Jal Park Society by the accused persons and assaulted by the accused persons. That, during the cross examination of these witnesses, nothing adverse was found in favour of the defence. 9. Learned APP Mr. Oza has also drawn attention of this Court to the deposition of these witnesses recorded before the trial Court and urged that their evidence was not correctly appreciated by the learned trial Judge, which has caused great injustice to the prosecution. That, all the prosecution witnesses have received medical treatment in two different hospitals viz., Kiklawada and Haria Hospital where Dr. Dipak Balkrishna Singhal [PW-10] attended them. That, the said Dr. Dipak Balkrishna Singhal, who was a Medical Officer in Haria Hospital was examined by the prosecution at Exh. 24 has also supported the injuries caused to these injured witnesses by issuing medical certificates in their favour. That, the injured witness Mahendra Indradev Rai [PW-5] sustained twenty four injuries and as per the opinion of Dr. Dipak Balkrishna Singhal [PW-10], these injuries may be possible due by a sharp cutting weapon and other injuries by blow of iron rod, pipe, etc. That, other witness Manoj @ Dablu Suryaban Rai [PW-7] sustained 19 injuries over his body and these injuries were opined by the Doctor to be caused by blow of iron rod, hockey stick, lathi, etc. As per the opinion of Dr. Dipak Balkrishna Singhal [PW-10], Rudal Sitaram Jadav [PW-8] sustained 16 injuries over his body which may be possible due to blows by a sharp cutting instrument like Sword and other minor injuries by weapons like iron rod, pipe, hockey stick, stick, etc. That, all the injuries sustained by these witnesses were grievous in nature, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the medical evidence in a proper way. That, all the injuries sustained by these witnesses were grievous in nature, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the medical evidence in a proper way. According to learned APP, testimonies of injured witnesses cannot be denied for its acceptance, as they were present at the time of offence. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Judge acquitting the accused is completely erroneous and deserves indulgence. 9.1 Learned APP has drawn attention of this Court also to the fact that the trial Judge has erroneously held that the witnesses were not in a position to identify the accused persons and no Test Identification Parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. That, the version of the injured witnesses as well as that of the complainant were not consistent and that the injured witnesses had not established the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of presence of the accused persons and they identification before the Court. That, the lapse on the part of the investigating agency in not conducting Test Identification Parade is not fatal to the prosecution case. It is further urged that common object was clearly established by the prosecution, and therefore, a request is made that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 29th July 2005 deserves to be quashed by allowing the present Appeal. 10. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel appearing for the respondents strongly objected to submissions made for and on behalf of the appellant-State by learned APP Mr. Rutvij Oza and thereby supported the findings and reasoning’s arrived at by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment and order acquitting his clients. It is further urged that the prosecution witnesses have tried to improve their version, and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon where there is a milee and a large number of assailants and the number of witnesses claimed to have witnessed the occurrence at a different stages of occurrence, it is to be born in mind that in such a situation, the easy tendency is to involve as many persons of the opposite faction as possible, by naming them as having seen in the milee, and it is a tendency which is more often discernible and is to be eschewed, and therefore, the evidence has to be examined with utmost care and caution. That, the presence of the accused at the place of offence was not established by the prosecution, and therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that any unlawful assembly was made by the accused persons. That, no muddamal was found from the custody of the accused. Further, it is not proved by the prosecution that intention of any of the accused was of committing robbery. While the accused were not present at the place of the offence, it cannot be presumed that the complainant or any other persons were assailed by them. There is no cogent and convincing ground to connect the accused in an offence punishable under Section 307, 326, 325 and 323 IPC. That, there is no question of breach of Notification of the District Magistrate retraining to possess any arms in a public place. That presence of accused Dudabhai at the place of offence cannot be believed and hence, the version that he was armed with a revolver, as per the prosecution case, does not arise. That none of the witnesses were injured by revolver or any injury was caused to any of the witnesses, and therefore, no offence under the Arms Act against the original accused No. 2 Hemant @ Luva Bhagwan Jadav was proved by the prosecution. That, the injury certificates produced by the prosecution nowhere states that any grievous injury was caused to any of the injured persons. That the prosecution has failed to establish presence of the accused at the place of offence, and therefore, they are entitled to claim benefit of doubt, as the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No evidence is produced by the prosecution that motorcycle or maruti fronty car was set ablaze by the accused. Hence, as per the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Patel appearing for the defence, the learned trial Judge has rightly considered and appreciated the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ultimately, it was urged by the learned advocate Mr. Patel to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and order, which is impugned herein. 11. Ultimately, it was urged by the learned advocate Mr. Patel to dismiss the appeal and confirm the judgment and order, which is impugned herein. 11. Having heard learned advocates for the respective sides and having given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstance of the cases, and having perused the material available on the record, as per the prosecution case, this incident took place on 25th February 2004 on Bhilad-Sarigam Road, Near Jal Park Building. If we consider the panchnama of the place of offence, which is available at Exh. 10, one Maruti Fronty car bearing registration No. GJ-5-N-462 and a motorcycle of the complainant are shown lying in a burnt condition. Prosecution has examined complainant; Satishbhai Harishanker Rai [PW-1 at Exh. 9]; Pratik Kumar Bansnarayan Rai [PW-2 at Exh. 11]; Anilkumar Dhansukhbhai Lad [PW-3 at Exh. 13]; Mahendra Indradev Rai [PW-4 at Exh. 18]; Manoj Parasnath Singh [PW-6 at Exh. 20]; Manoj @ Dablu Suryaban Rai [PW-7 at Exh. 21]; Rudal Sitaram [PW-8 at Exh. 22]; Brijesh Shankerbhai Jadav [PW-9 at Exh. 23] and medical officer Dr. Dipak Balkrishna Singal [PW-10 at Exh. 24]. A charge under Section 395 is also framed, as per the prosecution case, but no muddamal in respect of alleged robbery was recovered from the accused. It appears from the record that remand was also sought and granted by the Court concerned of the accused, but no muddamal was found from their possession. Surprisingly, no weapons alleged to have been used in the offence were recovered from the possession of the accused during the course of investigation. However, the fact of accused No. 2 Hemant @ Lavun Bhagwan Jadav has produced one revolver, but other weapons like Hockey sticks, iron pipes, sword, etc., were not recovered from the possession of the accused. True that the Test Identification Parade was not carried out by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, but only on this ground prosecution case cannot be discarded by the Court as indisputedly, the incident took place at 3:30 pm on a given date, and therefore, there was no necessity to carry out test identification parade. 12. Now let us examine and scrutinize the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and eye witnesses to the incident. First of all, if we consider the version of injured Brijesh who was examined as PW-9 at Exh. 12. Now let us examine and scrutinize the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and eye witnesses to the incident. First of all, if we consider the version of injured Brijesh who was examined as PW-9 at Exh. 23, no medical evidence is produced on record qua this witness, since as per his statement, he received four to five slaps, and thereafter, he ran away from the place of offence. If there were fifteen persons from the accused side who had assaulted others with weapons like iron pipes, sword, hockey sticks, etc., the version of this witness appears to be not justified that he was allowed to go only after four to five slaps and he ran away from their clutches. Further, if this witness managed to run away from the place of the offence, he never informed the Police or any other person about the incident having taken place. His statement was recorded on the next day evening at about 17:00 hours by the Police. However, this witness though was assaulted by the accused along with other witnesses, not informing the police or any other person by this witness creates doubt. As per his testimony, he has stated that on the evening of 20th February 2004, he came to know that Rudal Jadav, Manoj @ Dablu Jadav and Anand Tiwari has also received injures and they were admitted in a hospital. Under these circumstances, presence of this witness at the place of offence appears to be doubtful. 12.1 Let us now scrutinize the deposition of complainant Mahendra Indradev Rai [PW-5]. In the complaint, of course, he has given names of accused as Ashok Jadav, Ishwarbhai Bandari, Navinbhai, Hemantbhai and ten to fifteen other strangers assaulted them with hockey sticks, sword, iron pipes, etc. 12.2 Of course in the complaint, names of all the accused persons were disclosed, but surprisingly in the examination-in-chief, he has not given names of the accused before the Court or what weapons were used by the accused causing injuries to him. No name of the accused with a particular weapon causing injury to his body was even disclosed by this witness. Of course, he has stated that he had received injuries on his body on different parts by hockey stick, iron rod by the accused persons, but he has not clarified by name the assailants. No name of the accused with a particular weapon causing injury to his body was even disclosed by this witness. Of course, he has stated that he had received injuries on his body on different parts by hockey stick, iron rod by the accused persons, but he has not clarified by name the assailants. As per the complaint, while this witness was coming on a motorcycle, Ashokbhai, Ishwarbhai Bandari, Navinbhai, Hemantbhai and other ten to fifteen strangers had assaulted Manoj Singh and Rudal Jadav and hence he stopped his vehicle and tried to save them. Thereafter, he was also assaulted by the accused persons. In the examination-in-chief, he has given four names of the accused persons and has tried to identify them by names but he was unable to identify all the accused. As per his statement, he was able to identify only one accused namely Ashokbhai and another accused namely Lavubhai, though his actual name was Rajnikantbhai. Thus, the complainant has identified only one accused viz. Ashokbhai, but other accused were not known to him. Even another accused viz. Rajnikantbhai was identified wrongly by him as Lavubhai, therefore, a question would certainly arise as to how this witness has declared names of all the accused, as he was not known and aware of the names of the accused at the time of offence. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that under the instructions of anybody else, he has given names of all the accused in his complaint or the facts in the complaint were narrated by someone else. After incident, within two to three hours, this witness recorded his complaint in Kikalavada Hospital disclosing names of all the accused persons, but in the examination-in-chief before the Court, he was unable to identify all the accused by name; except Ashokbhai. Moreover, after the incident, it transpires from the record that PW-Rudal Jadav and complainant were admitted in the same hospital viz. Kikalvada Hospital at a distance of 3 to 4 meters away from the place of the offence, but there was no talk or discussion with this complainant and PW-Rudal Jadav, therefore, it appears that in Kikalawada Hospital, names of the accused must have been given by any other person to the complainant. It also transpires that while registering the complaint of this witness, his brother and presence of other five to six persons cannot be ruled out. It also transpires that while registering the complaint of this witness, his brother and presence of other five to six persons cannot be ruled out. That, names of the accused might have been given to the complainant by these persons. This witness has stated that in an inquiry made by Rakesh Rai, names of the accused persons were given to him. As in fact, when the complainant himself ran away, he would not be in a position to identify the accused and give names of the accused to Mr. Rakesh Rai, who happens to be cousin nephew of the complainant and Vice President of Umargaon Taluka Panchayat and Leader of Congress Party. It also transpires from the record that complaint was recorded by Mr. Captain, PSI in Kiklawalla Hospital. But, this Police Sub Inspector Mr. Captain is not examined as a witness by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 12.3 The Investigating Officer has not tried to get any information from Kiklawalla Hospital in respect of the complaint recorded by PSI Mr. Captain produced at Exh. 19. Even he has not tried to collect any injury certificate of the complainant and other injured witnesses viz., Rudal Jadav from this hospital. Even name of the Doctor who treated these two witnesses is not shown in the charge sheet nor examined by the prosecution. It also transpires from the record that after getting treatment in Kiklawalla Hospital, complainant was admitted on the very same day in Haria Hospital at about 6.00 pm. Injury certificate issued by this Hospital is brought on the record and produced at Exh. 30. The complainant has given history before the Doctor at Haria Hospital that, on 20th February 2004, at about 14:00 hours on Bhilad-Sarigam Road, he was assaulted by 30 to 40 persons who were armed with weapons like Iron rod, Pipes, Sticks, etc. Surprisingly, however, he had lodged his complaint before PSI-Mr. Captain at Kiklawalla Hospital. He has not given names of any of the assailants before Doctor at Haria Hospital where he was subsequently admitted at around 5 to 6 pm in the evening. Therefore, a doubt would create in respect of the complainant's version. Surprisingly, however, he had lodged his complaint before PSI-Mr. Captain at Kiklawalla Hospital. He has not given names of any of the assailants before Doctor at Haria Hospital where he was subsequently admitted at around 5 to 6 pm in the evening. Therefore, a doubt would create in respect of the complainant's version. This complainant was also enquired by Doctor at Kiklawalla Hospital in respect of the assailants but he has not given names of any of the assailants, but on the contrary stated that there was a mob of persons comprising 30 to 40 persons was there. This also raises a doubt about the correctness of the incident and in respect of knowing the accused by the complainant. 12.4 PW-6 Manoj Parasnath Singh was examined by the prosecution at Exh. 20. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that two assailants were known to him by name, and out of them one was Lav Jadav and another Navinbhai. But, this witness was unable to identify even these two persons or the remaining accused. Thus, from his deposition, we can infer that two accused persons namely Lav Jadav and Navin were known to this witness because their names were heard by him. Had these two accused were known to him, he could have certainly identified them before the Court. But, he has clearly stated that they are not known to him in his cross-examination. This witness was assaulted from backside and he has no idea as to who were the assailants. In the Certificate at Exh. 26, as per history given by this witness at about 14:30 hours, he stated to have said that he was assaulted by a mob. This witness was admitted in Haria Hospital at 18:00 hours on 20th February 2004 for further treatment. At that time also, he was not knowing names of the accused. Therefore, testimony of this witness cannot be believed and has rightly been discarded by the learned trial Judge. 12.5 Another witness PW-8 Rudal Sitaram Jadav in his deposition at Exh. 22 had stated that when he himself and others were traveling to Sarigam in a Maruti fronty car, at that time, near Jal Park Apartments his fronty was stopped by three persons who were on motorcycle. 12.5 Another witness PW-8 Rudal Sitaram Jadav in his deposition at Exh. 22 had stated that when he himself and others were traveling to Sarigam in a Maruti fronty car, at that time, near Jal Park Apartments his fronty was stopped by three persons who were on motorcycle. He has further stated that three to four persons came near their Car and other persons came in another Maruti Fronty car and started assailing them with weapons like hockey stick, sword, iron rod, stones and revolver, etc. As per his testimony, accused Navin Kahar was armed with sword; Lavu Jadav was armed with a weapon not clearly described by him; Ishwarbhai was armed with iron rod. He could not identify other two accused persons. However, one of the accused was known to this witness and he has given his name as Ashok, but while his real name was Raju Jadav. Rest of the accused were not identified by this witness and one accused was wrongly identified by him. In Kiklawalla hospital, this witness and the complainant were hospitalized, however, there was no discussion in respect of assailants between them. 12.6 If we consider the statement of the complainant and testimony of this witness given in cross examination and in his Police statement, wherein it is recorded that the assailants who caused injuries to this witness and his friends were Navin Kahar; Lavu Jadav; Ishwar Bhandari, Dilip Jadav and Raju Jadav. They were known to him because he was visiting frequently from Bhilad to Sarigam. 12.7 As per the police statement, if all the five accused persons were known to this witness, he must have identified all the five accused before the Court, but it has not happened. Only three accused were identified before the Court. One accused was wrongly identified and another was not identified at all. In the last line of his cross examination, he has admitted that till he was brought at Haria Hospital, he was not knowing that who had caused injuries to him, and therefore, from the deposition of this witness, it clarifies that since this witness Rudal Sitaram Jadav was in Tiklawalla hospital, he has no idea of the assailants, their names and who caused injuries to him. He was examined by Doctor at about 5:15 pm on 20th February 2004 in Haria Hospital giving history of occurrence that a mob of persons assailed at around 14:00 hours. 12.8 Now if we look at the deposition of the Investigating Officer Rakeshbhai Ramanbhai Patel [PW-11 at Exh. 41], he has prepared a panchnama of the scene of offence between 18:40 hours to 19:15 hours on the day of incident. This witness came to know that injured persons and eye witnesses were taken to Haria Hospital for further treatment, however, he has not recorded their statements immediately. PW-8 Rudal Jadav has no idea that when his statement was recorded by the Police, as he got unconscious in the evening of the date of incident. Therefore, it is clear that the statement of this witness was not recorded by the Police on 20th February 2004. There is nothing on the record that he was unconscious. If we now consider his injury certificate at Exh. 34, it transpires that he was conscious all throughout the day. As per his cross examination, before three years of the occurrence, all the five accused were seen by this witness in a festival of Janmastmi, but there was no talk with any of the accused nor names of these accused persons were known to him. If there was no meeting with the accused before three years of the incident and were only seen by this witness, knowing no names of any of the accused, however, identifying all of them would be difficult, and therefore, this version of the prosecution witness cannot be accepted. 12.9 Another witness PW-7 Manoj @ Dablu Suryaban Rai, who was examined at Exh. 21, states that his Maruti Fronty Car bearing registration No. GJ-5-N-462 was stopped near Jal Park Apartments by the accused persons who came on a motorcycle; maruti fronty car and one Santro and Quallis, asking him as to from where he was coming from and proceeding. These accused persons include Lavubhai Jadav, Ishwarbhai Bhandari; Navinbhai Kahar, Raju Jadav, Ashok Jadav and Dilip Jadav and others, whom he does not identify. In the examination in chief, he has identified all the accused persons by name. He has stated in his deposition that Navin Kahar was armed with sword; Lavubhai Jadav was armed with revolver and others accused persons were armed with iron rod, sticks, etc. In the examination in chief, he has identified all the accused persons by name. He has stated in his deposition that Navin Kahar was armed with sword; Lavubhai Jadav was armed with revolver and others accused persons were armed with iron rod, sticks, etc. He has further stated that while Lavubhai had shown his revolver, he tried to run away, and hence, in haste he fell down, and therefore, he was assailed by Ishwarbhai Bandari and Rajubhai with iron rod and by other four to five accused persons by stick, causing forearm injuries and a head injury. He further stated that at that time, his uncle Mahendra Rai came at the place of occurrence and therefore he ran away from the place and his uncle was assailed. 12.10 Certainly, in the examination-in-chief, this witness has identified all the five accused by names and it transpires from the cross-examination that after his running away from the place of occurrence, he went to his uncle Rakesh Rai's Jain Motors which is situated at Vapi Cross Roads in an auto-rickshaw, who admitted him at Kiklawalla hospital. However, he did not inform his uncle Rakesh Rai as to who were the assailants and by what weapons, he was injured. Only what he could disclose before his uncle Rakesh Rai was that he was assailed on Bhilad-Sarigam road, but he had not identified who were the assailants. Rakesh Rai is a person who brought this witness to Kiklawalla Hospital. If this witness was knowing all the five accused persons as assailants, then he would certainly inform by giving their names to Shri Rakeshbhai, but surprisingly, no names of the assailants were disclosed to his uncle Rakesh Rai. Injury certificate of this injured witness-Manoj @ Dablu Suryaban Rai is at Exh. 32 wherein in the history given by him, he had disclosed that he was assailed on 20th February 2004 on Bhilad-Sarigam Road at around 14:00 hours by some 30 to 40 persons. If we consider history given before the Doctor in Haria Hospital, certainly, this witness has no idea till he was admitted in Haria Hospital that who were the assailants. He had no talk with the accused earlier but he was frequently going to Sarigam from Bhilad, and therefore, accused persons were known to him. It is impressed that names of the accused and their identification was based on the say of other persons. He had no talk with the accused earlier but he was frequently going to Sarigam from Bhilad, and therefore, accused persons were known to him. It is impressed that names of the accused and their identification was based on the say of other persons. From the deposition of PW-7 Manoj @ Dablu Suryaban Rai and PW-8 Rudal Sitaram Jadav nothing concrete culls out in respect of names of the accused persons. Further, the Investigating Officer has not recorded their statements on 20th February 2004, but were recorded after 21st February 2004. No Police case diary was produced on the record of the case. The I.O. has not tried to record statement of the injured persons by visiting them in the Hospital where they were admitted for treatment. In the injury certificate of all the injured persons, history given by them is that they were assailed by a mob comprising of some 30 to 40 persons. All the injured persons were admitted in Haria Hospital on 20th February 2004 at around 5 to 6 pm., and all of them have stated before the Doctor that they were assailed by a mob of 30 to 40 persons. From these statements given before the Doctor, it transpires that till their admission in Haria Hospital, they were knowing nothing certain about the assailants. Of course, complainant himself is an injured witness, but so far presence of the accused assailing him appears very doubtful. 13. One another injured person named Anand is not examined by the prosecution. So far, credibility of the evidence of Investigating Officer also appears doubtful. PW-1 Satishbhai Harishanker Rai [Exh. 9] is a panch witness who was called by the Police. In normal course of occurrences, Police use to select panchas from nearby area of the offence. However, this panch-witness is cousin of Rakesh Rai, who happens to be maternal uncle of injured. This panch witness has also visited Tiklawalla as well as Haria Hospitals and had met Rakesh Rai i.e., maternal uncle. Investigating Officer has also admitted that there was no occasion or knowing the accused by the complainant, when the injured persons who is accused, before the incident. 14. As per the prosecution case, robbery of chain of the injured was made by the accused, but there were not signs of any injury on the neck of the injured. Due to previous animosity, this incident took place. 14. As per the prosecution case, robbery of chain of the injured was made by the accused, but there were not signs of any injury on the neck of the injured. Due to previous animosity, this incident took place. However, from the complaint, no previous animosity has surfaced on the record. However, it transpires that animosity with the accused was written later on in the complaint. Intention of committing robbery on the part of the accused is not proved by the prosecution because at the place of occurrence, there was heavy traffic of motor vehicles. Therefore, stopping injured witnesses, while they were going in a maruti fronty car, assailing them by the accused with deadly weapons; as alleged by the prosecution, and that of committing robbery does not inspire the confidence in the prosecution story. 15. If we scrutinize the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, no prudent person would believe that they were knowing the accused persons, however, during the investigation, no Test Identification Parade was carried out. Presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence on the broad day, forming unlawful assembly by the accused was not clearly proved by the prosecution, much less the previous animosity. 16. For the reasons afore stated, the impugned judgment and order dated 29th July 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 88 of 2004 acquitting the respondents herein does not warrant any interference, as the learned trial Judge has rightly conducted the trial and arrived at a conclusion in holding them not guilty. And therefore, when this Court finds that there is no illegality or perversity committed by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused from the charges leveled against them, no indulgence is warranted. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.