JUDGMENT : B.N. Karia, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C." for short), seeking to challenge the judgment and order dated 30th April 2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1992, whereby the respondents herein have been acquitted of charge for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal, are that on 7th January 1991 at around 7:00 hours, when the complainant-Savshibhai Vastabhai Koli denied the respondents task of performing certain religious ceremony known as "Surapurani Vidhi", the respondents keeping grudge over the same, formed an unlawful assembly with a common intention to cause death of the complainant and went to the house of complainant at Kuchiyadaval village. It is the case of prosecution that the respondents pelted stones over the head of the complainant; accused Gordhanbhai Shivabhai inflicted a knife blow on his left hand and also inflicted a pipe blow on the head of the complainant; and whereas, accused Jagabhai Ambabhai gave a stick ('Lathi') blow on the back side of the complainant. At that time, witness Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai and Babubhai Talshibhai intervened to save the complainant. However, the accused Gordhanbhai Shivabhai gave knife blow over the forehead of witness Chaturbhai and accused Maganbhai Govindbhai gave stone blow on the chest of another witness Babubhai Talshibhai, and caused injury to one Janaben Ranabhai. Thereafter, complainant and other injured witnesses were shifted to Rajkot Civil Hospital from where, the complainant was referred to Gondaliya Hospital for further treatment, where during the course of treatment, the complainant succumbed to injuries on 13th November 1991. However, the deceased complainant gave his complaint against the respondents herein during his treatment at Rajkot Civil Hospital, and therefore, initially charges were levelled against the accused under section 324 & 114 IPC, and upon demise of the complainant-Savshibhai Vastabhai Koli at Gondhaliya Hospital, charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC came to be added. The Investigating Officer drew panchnama of the place of offence; recorded statements of relevant witnesses and also collected injury certificates from the doctor concerned. The Investigating Officer drew panchnama of the place of offence; recorded statements of relevant witnesses and also collected injury certificates from the doctor concerned. Upon death of the complainant, the 1.0 drew Inquest panchnama and sent dead body for the purposes of post mortem, and in turn, collected post mortem report. The Investigating officer effected arrest of the respondents herein and recovered muddamal weapons at the instance of the accused persons and to that effect also, he draw panchnama and thereafter, sent the same to FSL and in turn, received reports. Thereafter, the 1.0 collected evidence and after following necessary procedure, prepared a chargesheet and submitted the same before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. Upon production of the accused, the learned Magistrate handed over all the necessary police papers to them. Since the case was exclusively a sessions triable, the learned Magistrate under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, committed it to the Court of Sessions at Rajkot. 3. At trial, the learned Sessions Judge, after verifying receipt of the police papers by the accused, framed charges against the respondents-accused vide Exh. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined witnesses and produced documentary evidences; which are enlisted on the record. However, after completion of examining witnesses and producing documentary evidences, the prosecution has filed a closing purshis. The learned trial Judge, upon receipt of the closing purshis from the prosecution, recorded further statements of the accused as per provision of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein also they have stated that they have been implicated falsely in the offence. Therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot after hearing both the sides at length, was pleased to acquit the respondents-accused of the charge vide impugned judgment and order dated 30th April 2005, giving rise to filing of the present Appeal by the State of Gujarat. 5. By an Order dated 13th March 2008, this Court (Coram: J.R. Vora, J., as he then was & M.R. Shah, J.) granted leave to appeal and thereby admitted the appeal. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective sides. 7. Learned APP Ms. 5. By an Order dated 13th March 2008, this Court (Coram: J.R. Vora, J., as he then was & M.R. Shah, J.) granted leave to appeal and thereby admitted the appeal. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective sides. 7. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakker appearing for the appellant-State assailed the impugned judgment and order dated 30th April 2005 passed in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1992 by stating that the same is contrary to the law, evidence on record and against the settled principles of justice. She further urged that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed an error in acquitting the respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. That, the prosecution has clearly proved its case against the accused as per the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt. 7.1 She further urged that by examining Medical Officer from the prosecution side, it was clearly proved that the death of the deceased complainant was homicidal. That, P.W. - 4 Prakashchandra Gokuldas Moda at Exh. 38, who is also an injured witness as well as Mr. Bharat Pranshanker Dholakia (PW-5 : Exh. 40) who was serving as a Medical Officer in Civil Hospital at Rajkot have clearly supported the case of prosecution. Dr. Dholakia has clearly stated that on 7th November 1991, he had examined Chaturbhai Kanjibhai; Janaben and Babubhai and Savshibhai who sustained injuries and to that effect he had issued four certificates which were produced on record at Exh. 41 to 45. He has further stated that injury No. 1 sustained by Charutbhai Kanjibha could be possible by muddamal article No. 9 i.e., knife; injury No. 2 could be possible by stick blow. The said prosecution witness has also examined deceased Savshibhai and found that one injury on his left side of skull where there was a fracture could be possible by a sharp cutting weapon. From the evidence of this medical officer, it is clear that all the injuries sustained by the injured persons; including deceased was due to scuffle and these injuries gets corroboration from evidence of the injured persons; including the deceased who lodged his complaint. From the evidence of this medical officer, it is clear that all the injuries sustained by the injured persons; including deceased was due to scuffle and these injuries gets corroboration from evidence of the injured persons; including the deceased who lodged his complaint. According to her, a complaint was lodged by the deceased himself on the very day of the offence i.e., 7th November 1991 when the complainant was initially admitted at Civil Hospital, Rajkot. 7.2 Learned APP drew attention of this Court to Exh. 51 which is the evidence of P.W. - 6 Dr. Nikhilkumar Pushkarrai Buch, who was serving as a Medical Officer at Rajkot Civil Hospital. He performed post mortem of the deceased complainant and prepared note, which is produced on record at Exh. 55. He has also opined that injuries sustained by the deceased over left side of his skull was enough for causing death in the ordinary course of nature. That, prosecution witnesses viz., Kanjibhai Savshibhai (PW-7 : Exh. 74) and Raghubhai Limbabhai (PW-8 : Exh. 75) are the eye witnesses to the incident. Both of these witnesses have also supported the prosecution case by narrating the whole incident and explaining as to how quarrel took place, while they were returning to their respective houses and as to how accused persons attacked their uncle deceased-Savshibhai. That another witness Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai (PW-9) who was examined at Exh. 76 also sustained injuries in the incident and he is also an eye witness who has supported the prosecution case. He has also attributed the role played by each of the accused by identifying them, causing injuries to him as well as other witnesses and also causing fatal injuries upon the deceased. That the evidence of the prosecution witnesses gets corroboration from the evidence given by the medical officers and also to the certificates produced on the record. That, there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses, she asserted. Not only that, during the cross examination of these witnesses, they have fully supported the prosecution case. Another prosecution witness Babubhai Talsibhai (PW-10: Exh. 77) is also an eye witness to the incident supporting the prosecution case, narrating whole incident on the same lines. That, the evidence of Police witnesses who have also supported prosecution case ought to have been believed by the learned trial Judge. Another prosecution witness Babubhai Talsibhai (PW-10: Exh. 77) is also an eye witness to the incident supporting the prosecution case, narrating whole incident on the same lines. That, the evidence of Police witnesses who have also supported prosecution case ought to have been believed by the learned trial Judge. That, the acquittal of the respondents is illegal and erroneous, and therefore, learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakker urged this Court to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 30th April 2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1992 acquitting the respondents-accused, by allowing this Appeal. 8. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the prosecution and urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. That, the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and trustworthy evidence before the Court. That the medical evidence, examining Medical Officer is contrary to evidence of prosecution when there is material contradictions and inconsistencies between eye witnesses in their deposition before the Court, as none of the witnesses are trustworthy or reliable, as rightly found by the learned trial Judge, and therefore, cannot be relied upon. That, no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. That, only interested witnesses are examined by the prosecution, however, their evidence is contrary to each other. That, no cogent or solid evidence is produced by the prosecution connecting the accused with the crime. That, in the same offence, the respondents herein viz., Gonvindbhai Shivabhai Koli; Jagabhai Ambabhai Koli; Maganbhai Govindbhai Koli have also sustained grievous injuries and a cross complaint was also filed by them, which was converted into Sessions Case No. 254 of 1998 against the complainant side. That the injury caused to the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in the same offence was never explained by the prosecution witnesses in their testimonies before the trial Court. That, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have denied in totality injuries sustained by the respondents, and hence, it is fatal lapse on the part of prosecution. Therefore, according to the learned advocate appearing for the respondents, the judgment and order impugned herein deserves no indulgence as the same is quite legal and valid and no error is committed by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused warranting any interference by this Court. Therefore, according to the learned advocate appearing for the respondents, the judgment and order impugned herein deserves no indulgence as the same is quite legal and valid and no error is committed by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused warranting any interference by this Court. Hence, it was urged by learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya appearing for the respondents to dismiss the Appeal preferred by the State. 9. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant-State as well as learned advocate for the respondents having bestowed our anxious consideration to the material placed before us, first of all, we would like to analyze the legal position. 10. In case of Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in, (2016) 4 SCC 357 , the Apex Court while discussing scope of interference in appeal against acquittal order, held and observed as under:- "20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 has held: "7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial Court. It is only when the approach of the trial Court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal." 11. Having considered facts of the case, submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides and having perused material available on the record of the case, it appears that the prosecution has examined their witnesses viz., Chhaganbhai Mangabhai (PW-3 at Exh. 34); Kanjibhai Savshibhai (PW 7 at Exh. 74); Raghubhai Limbabhai (PW-8 at Exh. 75); Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai (PW-9 at Exh. 76); Babubhai Talsibhai (PW-10 at Exh. 77) and Mohanbhai Chhanabhai Makwana (PW-12 at Exh. 85) as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Out of these eye-witnesses, P.W. - 7 Kanjibhai Savshibhai; P.W. - 9 Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai and P.W. - 10 Babubhai Talsibhai are injured witnesses. As per the prosecution case, Janaben had also sustained injuries in the occurrence, but prosecution has not chosen to examine her as a witness before the trial Court. The complaint of the incident was lodged by deceased Savshibhai Vastabhai, when he was hospitalized on 13th November 1991 at Civil Hospital, Rajkot. Considering the testimony of P.W. - 7 Kanjibhai Savshibhai; P.W. - 8 Raghubhai Libabhai; P.W. - 9 Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai and P.W. - 10 Babubhai Talsibhai alongwith P.W. - 4 Dr. Prakashchandra Gokuldas Moda and P.W. - 5 Dr. Bharat Pranshanker Dholakia, it is prima facie established that Savshibhai Vastabhai sustained injuries and during the course of his treatment, he succumbed to such injuries while he was under treatment at Gondaliya Hospital at Rajkot. Post mortem of the dead body was performed by P.W. - 6 Dr. Nikhilkumar Pushkarrai Buch (Exh. 51). He has produced post mortem report vide Exh. 55 and opined that due to head injury received by the deceased, he passed away. 12. From the testimony of Investigating officer Shri Ayendrakumar Sitarambhai (PW-17: Exh. Post mortem of the dead body was performed by P.W. - 6 Dr. Nikhilkumar Pushkarrai Buch (Exh. 51). He has produced post mortem report vide Exh. 55 and opined that due to head injury received by the deceased, he passed away. 12. From the testimony of Investigating officer Shri Ayendrakumar Sitarambhai (PW-17: Exh. 94) and P.W. - 20 Chandravadan Prabhulal Dalai, who was then serving as PSI, it appears that one complaint was registered against the injured persons of this case for causing injuries to the accused and cross complaint was also filed. Prosecution witnesses Chaturbhai Bhimbjibhai and Raghubhai Lababahi as well as Babubhai Talsibhai have admitted that in connection with this incident, they are also facing trial in the same Court, and therefore, it is an undisputed fact that cross complaint was filed by the respondents-accused against the injured witnesses, which was tried as Sessions Case No. 254 of 1998. 13. Out of the prosecution witnesses, P.W. - 7 Kanjibhai Savshibhai; P.W. - 8 Raghubhai Limbabhai; P.W. - 9 Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai and P.W. - 10 Babubhai Talsibhai have certainly supported the prosecution case, while other eye witnesses viz., P.W. - 3 Chhaganbhai Mangabhai and P.W.-Mohanbhai Chhanabhai have not supported prosecution and they have turned hostile. It also appears from the record that accused No. 3-respondent No. 3 herein viz., Maganbhai Govindbhai Koli is son of Mongiben, who happens to be aunt of the deceased, and whereas, Govind Shivabhai Koli, who is original accused No. 4 has passed away during pendency of this Appeal, as declared by learned advocate Mr. Gondaliya for the respondents, and therefore Appeal qua him stands abated. P.Ws.-Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai; Babubhai Talsibhai and Kanjibhai Savshibhai have stated in their testimonies that the accused assailed on the complainant-Savshibhai Vastabhai and as result of which, he succumbed to injuries. But, it appears from the entire evidence that correct facts of the incident were not disclosed by this witness. 14. It is undisputed that out of all the accused persons, accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have received injuries grievous in nature in the same incident. Medical Officer P.W. - 5 Dr. Bharat Pranshanker Dholakia has also stated that on 7th November 1991 i.e., the date of offence, he had examined accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 14. It is undisputed that out of all the accused persons, accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have received injuries grievous in nature in the same incident. Medical Officer P.W. - 5 Dr. Bharat Pranshanker Dholakia has also stated that on 7th November 1991 i.e., the date of offence, he had examined accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4. As per evidence of Govindbhai Shivabhai Koli, he had received head injury; Jagabhai Ambabhai Koli had received injury on his right shoulder on backside and forehead injury. While Maganbhai Govindbhai Koli had received injury on his right hand. Their injury certificates were produced by this witness at Exhs. 47, 48 and 49 respectively. Injury caused to accused Jagabhai Ambabhai Koli on his forearm was possible by a sharp cutting weapon; while injury caused to accused Govindbhai Shivabhai Koli was possible by stick, pipe or hard and blunt substance. 15. If we consider the entire evidence led by the prosecution, all the eye witnesses and injured witnesses have denied injuries caused to the accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in the incident. No explanation was given by any of the prosecution witnesses of the injuries caused to the accused. Prosecution witness Kanji Savjibhai has completely denied in his cross examination that accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 had received any injuries or that the complainant side had caused any injuries to them. Another prosecution witness Raghunhai Limbabhai in his examination-in-chief has denied that any of the persons from the prosecution side had caused injury to the accused persons. In the cross examination also, he has denied that accused were assaulted. He has not seen any injury to the accused. He has denied that there were any weapon in the hands of the complainant side, nor any injury was caused to the accused. 15.1 On the same line, prosecution witness Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai (PW-9 at Exh. 76) has supported the version of P.W. - 8 Raghubhai Limbabhai. Even P.W. -Babubhai Talsibhai has supported the version of the prosecution witnesses of not causing any injury on the person of accused side. He has further stated that there were no weapons in the hands of the complainant side nor they had assaulted any one. He has not seen that the accused were assaulted by the complainant side, however, all these prosecution witnesses were present and have seen the incident. He has further stated that there were no weapons in the hands of the complainant side nor they had assaulted any one. He has not seen that the accused were assaulted by the complainant side, however, all these prosecution witnesses were present and have seen the incident. They have boldly denied that any injury was caused to the accused in the same occurrence. Nor they have noticed any injury being caused to the accused persons. As discussed above, the accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have received injuries serious in nature in the same incident, however, the prosecution is completely silent of the said injuries by denying that no injury was inflicted by him, nor any explanation was given to that effect. 16. From the evidence of this prosecution witness, it appears that on the material point, these witnesses are suppressing the real facts, and therefore, evidence of the prosecution cannot be relied in such a case of murder when the accused have received grievous injuries and the prosecution witnesses have completely denied such injuries. Thus, in absence of any explanation coming forth on the record with respect to injuries sustained by the accused, it would be fatal to the prosecution case, as they are not declaring true facts before the Court, and therefore, it is difficult to accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Whatever injuries were caused to the accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in the same occurrence were not simple in nature or superficial, but it was grievous in nature, as per the medical evidence. If eye witnesses were present at the time of the incident and have seen the offence, in normal course, they must have seen the injuries caused to the accused persons. 17. As reported in case of Rajendra Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 298 , ordinarily, the prosecution is not obliged to explain each injury on an accused even though injuries might have been caused in the course of occurrence, if the injuries are minor in nature, but at the same time, if the prosecution fails to explain a grievous injury on one of the accused persons which is established to have been caused in the course of same occurrence then certainly, the Court looks at the prosecution case with a little suspicion on the ground that the prosecution has suppressed the true version of the incident. Here also, from the medical evidence, it is clearly established that the accused Nos. 2, 3 & 4 have received grievous injuries which are not minor in nature in the same occurrence. However, prosecution has completely denied such injuries caused to the accused and is silent on this aspect. None of the witnesses have explained any injuries caused to the accused. Therefore, case of the prosecution appears to be suspicious, as the prosecution has tried to suppress the true version of the incident. 17.1 Further, from the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution before the trial Court, their evidence is not trustworthy or truthful, as the prosecution witnesses viz., Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai; Raghubhai Lambabhai and Babubhai Talsibhai have stated that Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai was assaulted by Gordhanbhai Ambabhai with a knife on his forehead. While, Savshibhai Vastabhai was assaulted by Maganbhai Govindbhai with a stone; Govindbhai Shivabhai with a pipe and Gordhanbhai Ambabhai with a stick. But, it transpires from the evidence of prosecution witness Ayendrakumar Sitaram, Investigating Officer that all the three witnesses have not stated in their statement recorded before the Police as to what weapons were used by the accused, or on what part injury was caused to them or to the deceased Savshibhai Vastabhai. Therefore, it is clear from the statements made before the Police by these prosecution witnesses that whatever statement was given by them before the Court, they have not stated in their statement correctly, but for the first time, they have declared it before the Court. It is very material in a criminal trial to prove the injuries caused by the accused to the injured. But, in the statements before the Police, these witnesses have remained silent. With material contradictions in their deposition, contrary to their statements before Investigating Officer, their evidence in respect of causing injuries to the injured is a very weak evidence. 17.2 Further, the injured person Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai (PW-9: Exh. 79) has stated before the Court that Gordhanbhai Ambabhai was assailed by knife and Savshibhai and Gordhanbhai Ambabhai caused injuries to his forehead. 17.3 At this stage, if we consider the deposition of Investigating officer-Ayendrakumar Sitaram, prosecution witness Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai has not stated before the Police that knife was used by the accused, and therefore, deposition of this witness that deceased was assailed by knife and had received injuries is nothing but improvement in version made before the Court. 17.3 At this stage, if we consider the deposition of Investigating officer-Ayendrakumar Sitaram, prosecution witness Chaturbhai Bhimjibhai has not stated before the Police that knife was used by the accused, and therefore, deposition of this witness that deceased was assailed by knife and had received injuries is nothing but improvement in version made before the Court. Complaint is produced on record at Exh. 92, which was lodged by deceased himself when he was admitted in Civil Hospital at Rajkot. After lodging of the said complaint, complainant-Savsibhai Vastabhai passed away during treatment and therefore, it was treated as Dying Declaration. Now, if we look at the complaint, nowhere it is stated that except the complainant, any one else sustained injuries in the occurrence. It is not the case of the prosecution that after sustaining injuries by the complainant, he was unconscious and he had no idea what incident had happened, but in fact, the complainant was conscious after the incident and that too after reaching the hospital, he has got recorded his complaint. Injured persons are family members of the complainant-Savshibhai Vastabhai. But, he has not stated in his complaint that any of them had received any injuries in the occurrence or they were present at the time of the incident. Therefore, statement of the injure prosecution witnesses appear to be not trustworthy and hence it cannot be accepted at its face value. 17.4 At this juncture, if we consider the deposition of P.W. - 5 Dr. Bharat Pranshanker Dholakia (Exh. 40), he has given medical treatment to the injured Chaturbhai Kanjibhai; Janaben and Babubhai and Savshibhai. If we consider the deposition of this medical officer, none of the injured persons have given any history declaring names of the accused persons. Only they have stated that they have sustained injuries in a scuffle. This conduct of the injured witnesses not giving names of the accused in history before the Medical Officer appears to be unnatural. Other prosecution witnesses viz., P.W. - 3-Chhaganbhai Mangabhai (Exh. 34) and P.W. - 12 Mohanbhai Channabhai Makwana (Exh. 85) have not supported the prosecution story. These witnesses were examined by the prosecution are cousin brothers and appear to be interested witnesses. No independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution supporting the injuries caused to the injured complainant-Savsibhai Vastabhai; who succumbed to such injuries and other injured persons. 18. 34) and P.W. - 12 Mohanbhai Channabhai Makwana (Exh. 85) have not supported the prosecution story. These witnesses were examined by the prosecution are cousin brothers and appear to be interested witnesses. No independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution supporting the injuries caused to the injured complainant-Savsibhai Vastabhai; who succumbed to such injuries and other injured persons. 18. Thus, considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses; as discussed above, it appears that they have tried to improve their version and modify their statements recorded before the Police. Their evidence is found to be not trustworthy, as it is not supported by any independent witness. The injuries caused by the accused were not explained by any of the prosecution witnesses, and therefore also, on such a weak evidence, accused cannot be connected in the crime. 19. Now, if we examine complaint Exh. 22, it can be treated as a Dying Declaration, it appears that there are number of changes made by erasing names of the accused persons. In the complaint, initially, name of accused No. 1 was written as "Magan Amba" and thereafter, name of "Amba" was removed and name of "Govind" was substituted. In the same way, initially, name of accused No. 2 was written as "Raghu Limba". Thereafter, by removing the entire name, fresh name of "Govind Shiva" was replaced. Further, on the first page of the complaint, at last line, name of "Raghu Amba" was removed and in his place, fresh name was added as "Govind Shiva". There is no signature made by the author of the complaint, either way while removing the old names or adding the fresh names. The Police Officer Vallimullah Siddique has tried to explain such mistake made while recording the complaint saying that after writing the complaint, it was found that there was some mistake in the name of the accused, and therefore, they were amended. As per his statement, writer of the complaint in hot haste committed mistakes in recording names of the accused persons, which were rectified later on. Explanation given by this witness appears to be not trustworthy or cannot be accepted. As per his statement, writer of the complaint in hot haste committed mistakes in recording names of the accused persons, which were rectified later on. Explanation given by this witness appears to be not trustworthy or cannot be accepted. If a person has declared name of the accused as Magan Govind and the writer of the complaint writes it as "Manga Amba" as well as name of Raghu Amba was declared and instead of it, it was written as "Govind Shiva" cannot be believed in normal course because all the names does not appear to be similar or phonetic pronouncement creates any confusion so that error might crept in while hearing the name and in recording it. 19.1 Further, it appears that in the complaint, deceased Savshibhai Vastabhai has stated that he was assaulted by stone pelted on his forehead by Magan Amba and Gordhanbhai Amba caused him one injury by knife to his left hand and other persons had assaulted him giving fist and kicks. It also appears that in the complaint, it is stated that Jaga Amba had assaulted the complainant by a stick blow and caused injury on his backside of the body, which is not written in the complaint. It is not disclosed in the complaint that except Magan Amba and Govind Amba who had caused injuries to the complainant. While the eye witnesses to the occurrence says that accused Govind Shiva assaulted by stone and caused head injury to the deceased and whereas, Jagga Amba assaulted him with a stick. In the complaint, only two injuries are shown and the assaulters were only two in number. No names of other accused persons were given in the complaint. It is further stated in the complaint that other persons of the village tried to save deceased, but who were other persons who had tried to save him were not described by name in the complaint. It is not declared in the complaint that son of the deceased viz. Kanji, who is nephew of Chaturbhai, Babubhai and Raghubhai tried to save the deceased. Even names of eye witnesses are not shown in the complaint as well as what injuries they sustained during the occurrence is also not shown in the complaint. It transpires that the deceased alone had sustained some injuries, as has been declared in the complaint. Kanji, who is nephew of Chaturbhai, Babubhai and Raghubhai tried to save the deceased. Even names of eye witnesses are not shown in the complaint as well as what injuries they sustained during the occurrence is also not shown in the complaint. It transpires that the deceased alone had sustained some injuries, as has been declared in the complaint. Further, it is not made out from the complaint that at the time of incident, there was stone pelting and a free fight. On the contrary, prosecution witnesses Raghubhai Limbabhai (PW-8 at Exh. 75) and Babubhai Talsibhai (PW-10 at Exh. 77) had stated that there was a free fight and stone pelting. Further, it is not disclosed in the complaint that accused had received any injuries. Complaint itself is silent in respect of injuries sustained by the accused. 19.2 It transpires from the complaint that incident had happened when deceased Savshibhai Vastabhai was present while performing ceremony of "Sura Pura". While the prosecution witness Kanji Savji says that his father-Savshibhai Vasta and mother were not present at the ceremony. None of the eye witnesses have stated that deceased was present in the ceremony. From their evidence also, presence of deceased in this ceremony is not proved. From the entire evidence, it also transpires that evidence of prosecution is not trustworthy or reliable. Names of the accused persons are not properly disclosed in the complaint as well as weapons which they were armed with at the time of incident. Therefore, Exh. 92, if is treated as a Dying Declaration, cannot be relied on as the names of the accused are changed later on. The Police Officer who has tried to explain the changes made in the names cannot be believed from his statement. Weapons alleged to have been used by the accused in the offence are not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. 20. For the foregoing reasons, it can be safely concluded that the learned trial Judge has committed no error in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. Since there being no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 30th April 2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1992, the present Appeal preferred by the State under Section 378(1)(3) CrPC fails and is hereby dismissed.