ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. This application under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking leave to prefer appeal against judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.4.2016 in Sessions Case No. 156 of 2015 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, acquitting respondent of offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 337 and 323 of IPC etc. by giving benefit of doubt. 2. Shri. R.C Kodekar, learned APP invited our attention to the complaint filed by one Ramanbhai Hadiyabhai Bhabhor residing at Village Moti Dhadheli, that when complainant was at his residence on 25.12.2011 around 14.30 hours Dineshbhai Hemabhai Taviyad, Badiyabhai Jithrabhai Taviyad and Rajubhai Dalsingbhai Taviyad came to his house and informed him to accompany them for canvassing during election of the ward and, thereafter, when they were approaching towards Suki Devi Street around 15.30 hours in the afternoon, there was shouting for help and complainant, his uncle Madiyabhai and mother Bhurkiben, all the three went to a nearby well and saw that scuffle was going on and according to the complainant they had seen his brother Babubhai beaten with sword by Ramsu Machhar on his left hand and Tejsing Ranji and Kalsing Ranji, who were armed with axe were also beating his brother on his legs and chest. In the meantime, other persons also gathered and started pelting stones and even one Makna Parghi shot arrows to the brother of the complainant and thereafter complainant intervened and accused Makna Parghi inflicted axe blow on the right side thigh and shoulder and other persons also intervened. On complainant side many persons received injuries due to pelting of stones and, later on, brother of the complainant Babu, who received injuries was shifted to Government Hospital at Sukhsar, where he was declared dead and, accordingly, FIR was lodged being C.R No. I-47/2011 at Sukhsar Police Station for the offence to which reference is made in earlier paragraph. At the end of investigation and committal of case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, prosecution had examined seventeen witnesses and also adopted evidence of five witnesses of Sessions Case No. 43 of 2013 arising out of a cross-case but in absence of evidence resulted into acquittal and is under challenge before this Court. 3. At the end of investigation and committal of case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, prosecution had examined seventeen witnesses and also adopted evidence of five witnesses of Sessions Case No. 43 of 2013 arising out of a cross-case but in absence of evidence resulted into acquittal and is under challenge before this Court. 3. Learned APP has taken us to evidence in the context of case of the prosecution which has genesis in the complaint to which reference is made earlier and it is submitted that PW-1, complainant at Exh.5, who was present at the scene of offence, in his testimony as an eye witness deposed about accused inflicting sword blow on the backside of his brother Babubhai and the same is supported by PW-2, wife of Hadiyabhai and mother of the deceased and even injury mentioned would confirm the possibility of inflicting blow by sharp edged weapon. Even PW-2, Dr. Bharat Patel, at Exh.27, whose evidence was recorded in another Sessions Case No. 43 of 2013, deposed about injury on complainant and according to evidence of medical officer, such injury though of simple nature was possible by hard and blunt substance. It is submitted that profuse bleeding due to grievous injury on the hand of the deceased Babubhai is the cause of death and, therefore, learned trial Judge ought to have convicted the respondent, whose presence at the scene of offence remains undisputed including that active participation in crime by weapon of assault was deposed by witnesses and well supported by medical evidence. 4. We have carefully gone through the record and copies of testimonies of eye-witnesses, medical officer and other documentary evidence including injury certificate etc. It is categorically deposed by medical officer, PW-1, Dr. Sumanben Palas, who is examined in another case being Sessions Case No. 43 of 2013, that only one injury was found on the left hand of injured Babubhai and timely medical treatment could have avoided casualty resulting into death of injured. Postmortem report, Exh.-29, in column no. 17 reveal that left arm and forearm having incised wound of size 18 cm. × 7 cm. × 3 cm. having cut of muscle and blood vessel and profuse bleeding while no other injury is found either external or internal on head, chest and abdomen. 5. Postmortem report, Exh.-29, in column no. 17 reveal that left arm and forearm having incised wound of size 18 cm. × 7 cm. × 3 cm. having cut of muscle and blood vessel and profuse bleeding while no other injury is found either external or internal on head, chest and abdomen. 5. In the above factual scenario and say of the complainant of so many persons inflicting multiple injuries with different type of weapons and parts of body of the injured appear to be exaggerated and not supported by the documentary evidence. Thus, version of the complainant and other eye witnesses is untrustworthy, inspiring no confidence and, therefore, unreliable. The trial Court has examined all such evidence threadbare and found no blood stain marks on even weapons of assault to which mention was made by witnesses and further panchas of almost all panchnamas have turned hostile or not supported the case of the prosecution substantially. Formation of unlawful assembly is not believed by the learned trial Judge in absence of any material on record. We find no ground to interfere with well-reasoned order passed by learned trial Judge resulting into acquittal of respondent. Accordingly, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Rule is discharged.