JUDGMENT : ANANT S. DAVE, J. This appeal is filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “the Code, 1973”) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Godhra dated 29.11.2005 in Sessions Case No. 239 of 1998 acquitting the respondents - accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 325 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that a complaint was registered by Maheshbhai Mansukhbha residing at Shaniyala village being CR No. I-162 of 1998 at Bariya Police Station on 21.07.1998 at 2:30 hours alleging that since one year he was plying rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ 17 U 1253 between Piplod and Bandibar road and residing at his uncle's place at Pratap Koli, resident of Paniya. It is further stated that on the previous day of incident at 5:30 p.m one Sakilbhai Pijara got in his rickshaw at the cross roads of village Saniyala and when the rickshaw reached flour mill of Mana Savaji, Subhash Chaku - accused No. 1 was standing on the road with cycle and he intentionally pushed his cycle on rickshaw of the complainant. The complainant therefore stopped his rickshaw and accused No. 1 caught hold of collar of his shirt and slapped on his back and due to fear the complainant ran away from the scene and reached his home. The complainant informed about the incident to his grandfather - Parsinh Dhana and his father-Mansukhbhai and also mother - Hiriben and thereafter all of them left for the spot where the rickshaw was lying. At that time, accused No. 1 and other accused persons were standing there. Accused No. 1 was standing with iron pipe, accused No. 2 was having ‘dharia’ and accused No. 3 was having ‘dang’ and accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 were having sticks in their hands. All of them came running towards them and accused No. 2 gave a ‘dharia’ blow on the back side of the complainant and accused No. 1 gave a blow of iron pipe on the knee of right leg of his father, accused No. 3 gave ‘dang’ blow on the right shoulder and accused No. 4 gave stick blow on back and shoulder. Accused No. 1 also gave a blow on mother of accused, Hiraben with iron pipe on her head and elbow of her right hand, accused No. 2 gave a ‘dharia’ blow on his grandfather Parsingh Dhana and accused Nos. 6 and 7 gave stick blows on his leg and accused No. 5 shot arrow from his bow on the complainant. However, he escaped the same and it did not hit him. After causing grievous injuries to the complainant and other witnesses all the accused ran away from the scene of evidence. Thereafter, complainant went home out of fear of the accused persons. His grandfather was seriously injured and he was lying on the road and due to the fear of the accused persons, immediate medical treatment was neither provided to him nor could they file complaint. The motive behind committing the murder of his grandfather was of the incident which took place six months prior to the said incident of his brother Arvindbhai teased Niruben, daughter of accused No. 1 residing in their faliya and keeping the grudge his family members caused injury to them and also caused death of his grandfather. 3. That upon completion of the investigation and committal of the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, 1973, the charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and the charge was explained and read over to the accused, which was not accepted by the accused, and accordingly, the accused was tried in Sessions Case No. 239 of 1998. 4. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned APP has taken us through the evidence of injured eye witnesses and Medical Officer, who examined them and other panch and police witnesses and submitted that PW-1 original complainant, PW-5 father of the complainant and PW-6 mother of the complainant in their testimonies clearly described the manner in which the incident had taken place and how they were assaulted by accused inflicting blows on their bodies by usage of such weapons. She has also taken us through testimonies of PW-3, Dr. Ravindrakumar Pandit, who examined 3 victims and PW-4 Dr. Prabhakar Bhatia, who performed postmortem on deceased, and submitted that injuries described by injured witnesses match with medical certificate of injuries and testimonies of both the above medical officers. She has also taken us through testimonies of PW-3, Dr. Ravindrakumar Pandit, who examined 3 victims and PW-4 Dr. Prabhakar Bhatia, who performed postmortem on deceased, and submitted that injuries described by injured witnesses match with medical certificate of injuries and testimonies of both the above medical officers. According to her, some panch witnesses have turned hostile but at the same time police witnesses particularly PW-14, who registered the FIR and sent it to PSI for further investigation and PW-15, who submitted charge sheet before the court and other such witnesses including PW-17, who had investigated the case and recorded statements of witnesses, have supported the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have ignored even minor discrepancies, contradictions, improvements or omissions and, therefore, appeal deserves to be allowed by quashing and setting order of acquittal passed by the trial court. 5. Per contra, Shri. N.R Kodekar, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in absence of any error in appreciating the evidence, view taken by the learned trial Judge about no guilt of the accused in view of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt deserves no interference by this court. According to learned advocate for the respondents, if version of injured eye witnesses is compared with that of injuries noticed on their body, more particularly, in absence of clear FSL evidence and in the backdrop of rivalry between the complainant and accused for which various FIRs were lodged in recent past, possibility of falsely implicating the respondents - accused persons cannot be ruled out. It is, therefore, submitted that appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned APP for the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned counsel for the respondents - accused. In view of various injuries and usage of pipes, sticks, etc. It is, therefore, submitted that appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard learned APP for the appellant-State of Gujarat and learned counsel for the respondents - accused. In view of various injuries and usage of pipes, sticks, etc. in inflicting blows on injured/victim, we would like to summarize allegations as per the complaint and medical evidence in tabular form, which reads as under: Allegations as per the complaint:- Mahesh Mansukh (Complainant) PW.1 Mansukh Jhokhna (Father of Complainant) PW.5 Hiriben mansukhn (Mother of complainant) PW.6 Parsing Ghanabhai (Deceased) A-1 Subhash Chaku -Iron Pipe Head blow by iron pipe Right hand elbow & head blow by iron pipe Leg (knee) blow by iron pipe A-2 Sona Sabur-Dhariya back side of head blow by Dhariya Head blow by Dhariya A-3 Mana Savji-Stick back side blow by stick Leg blow by stick A-4 Himant Savji-Stick back side blow by stick Leg blow by stick A-5 Arjun Narvat-Bow arrow Bow arrow blow but the complainant save his life and arrow not targeted A-6 Ranjit Chaku –Stick Leg blow by stick A-7 Amra Bhikha –Stick Leg blow by stick A-8 Chaku Sabur –Stick Leg blow by stick Medical Evidence: Mahesh Mansukh (Complainant) PW.1 Mansukh Jhokhna (Father of Complainant) PW.5 Hiriben Mansukh (Mother of complainant) PW.6 Parsing Ghanabhai (Deceased) PW-3 Ravindra Purohit -3 injuries-all injuries by hard and blunt weapon-all injuries not done by the Dhariya -4 injuries-all injuries by hard and blunt weapon-all injuries were appeared simple 3 injuries-all injuries by hard and blunt weapon-all injuries were appeared simple PW-4 Prabhakar Bhatiya -4 external injuries (Column. 17-PM report) -2 internal injuries (Column. 19-PM report) -Cause of death: Shock due to Intra Carnial Hemorrhage-1 injury major is done by the Axe but knot by the iron pipe Note:- Axe is not recovered or discovered by the accused persons-In cross complaint alleged that the Hiriben came with the Axe-Axe recovered but not sent to the FSL by the police. 6.1 The details about discovery and recovery panchnama and testimonies of panchas are as under: Discovery & Recovery Panchnama: Name of the witness Name of the accused Particulars PW-2 Mansukh Sursing Bariya A-1 Subhash Chaku (iron pipe) A-2 Sona Sabur (Dhariya) Panch witness-Discovery panchnama witness - p.308 specifically deposed that Mathur Narsing is present in the Court and he insisted to admit before the court that Dhariya and iron pipe were discovered. -In village having dhariya and iron pipe in every house. -Not fruitful deposition to established prosecution case. PW-13 Shanabhai Maganbhai A-3 Mana Savji (Stick) A-4 Himant Savji (Stick) A-5 Arjun Narvat (Bow and 2 arrow) A-6 Ranjit Chaku (Stick) A-7 Amra Bhikha (Stick) A-8 Chaku Sabur (Stick) -This witness is the relative of the complainant -this witness married with daughter of Mansukh Jokhna -clearly deposed that “Muddamal stick having all the villagers in their home-It is admitted that all sticks appear same therefore difficult to recognize”. -This witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. 6.2 We have carefully examined testimonies of injured eye witnesses viz. PW-1 complainant, PW-5 father of the complainant, PW-6 mother of the complainant, along with testimonies of Medical Officer PW-3, who examined all three victims initially and PW-4 Medical Officer, who performed postmortem of the deceased, which reads as under: Sr. No. PW. Exh. Name of the witness Particulars 1 PW-1 Exh-20 Mahesh Mansukhbhai Bariya - Original complainant -received injury on back side of head by dhariya blow given by Sona Sabur (Accused No. 2) -injury certificate Exh.29 2 PW-5 Exh-35 Mansukhbhai Jokhnabhai -Father of complainant -received injury on right shoulder, forearm, occipital region and right knee by iron pipe and stick by Mana Savji (A3), Himmat Savji (A-4), Subhash Chaku (A-1) -injury certificate Exh.27 3 PW.6 Exh.36 Hiriben Mansukh Bariya -Mother of complainant -received injury on right parietal, Left elbow and right super scalpel by iron pipe by Subhash Chaku (A-1) -injury certificate Exh.25 4 PW-3 Exh-24 Dr. Ravindrakumar Premshankar Purohit -Examined all three victims (complainant, Mansukh Jokhna & Hiriben) -All three witnessses/victims received injuries by hard and sharp cutting weapons. Examination: 1.Mahesh Mansukh Bariya -Found 3 injuries -All injuries by the hard & blunt weapon -There is no possibility of injury done by the sharp cutting weapon -This witness took treatment in the Hospital for one week 2.Hiriben Mansukhbhai -Found 3 injuries -All injuries by hard & blunt weapon -All injuries are found simple 3.Mansukh Jokhna -Found 4 injuries -All injuries by heard & blunt weapon -All injuries are found simple 5 PW-4 Exh-32 Dr. Prabhakar Ramubhai Bhatiya -Performed Postmortem of deceased -column no. 17 - found 4 external injuries on body-column no. 19 - found 2 internal injuries on body-Shock due to Intra Hemorrhage-injury no. Prabhakar Ramubhai Bhatiya -Performed Postmortem of deceased -column no. 17 - found 4 external injuries on body-column no. 19 - found 2 internal injuries on body-Shock due to Intra Hemorrhage-injury no. 1 E/H of skull bruise zig zag borders by Axe (kuhadI) -This witness clearly deposed that “head injury done by the Axe because back side of the axe is zigzag and injury also is zigzag” 6 PW-2 Exh-306 Mansukhbhai Sursingbhai Bariya -Panch witness-Discovery panchnama witness-p.308 - specifically deposed that Mathur Narsing was present in Court and he insisted to admit before the court that Dhariya and iron pipe were discovered. -In village, dhariya and iron pipe were are found in every house. -This deposition fails to establish prosecution case. 7 PW-7 Exh-38 Sursingbhai Virabhai -This is independent witness -declared Hostile -Not supported the case of the prosecution. 8 PW-8 Exh-39 Parvatbhai Dhanabhai -This-is independent witness-clearly deposed that “In back side of the road I saw Subhash Chaku, Mahesh Mansukh, Mansukh Jokhna, Hiriben and Parsing Dhana all five persons had altercation with each other and I shouted to stop quarrel and they were calm down and thereafter I went to my home and while sitting on otla, I did not hear anything”. -“Thereafter I came to know that Parsing/deceased had injury from axe in melee” -Not supported the case of the prosecution. 9 PW-9 Exh-40 Joshi Manojkumar Ramanlal -This witness is the discovery panchnama witness -Sona Sabur (A-2) & Subhash Chaku (A-1) discovery panchnama-This witness clearly deposed in chief that “my car was in police requisition and I went to police station for my driver at that time police personnel took signature in the panchnama, which type of the panchnama I didn't know and I didn't read it”. -I couldn't recognize the blood stain on Dhariya, Police said it and therefore I signed”. - -Not supported the case of the prosecution. 10 PW-10 Exh-41 Bariya Jhavarsinh Punabhai -This witness is the offence place panchnama witness -declared Hostile -Not supported the case of the prosecution 11 PW-11 Exh-46 Meeraben Abhesinh Bariya -This witness is relative of complainant -this witness addressing the offence place to the police -this witness also not supported the case of the prosecution. 10 PW-10 Exh-41 Bariya Jhavarsinh Punabhai -This witness is the offence place panchnama witness -declared Hostile -Not supported the case of the prosecution 11 PW-11 Exh-46 Meeraben Abhesinh Bariya -This witness is relative of complainant -this witness addressing the offence place to the police -this witness also not supported the case of the prosecution. 12 PW-12 Exh-47 Sumitraben Chhaganbhai -This witness is the independent witness -This witness deposed that “her statement same type of the statement of Meeraben recorded by the police” -Not supported the case of the prosecution 13 PW-14 Exh-51 Ramjibhai Bodharbhai -Police witness -serving his duty as PSO at police station and registered the said FIR in register and sent to PSI for further investigation. 14 PW-15 Exh-53 Kanjibhai Pujabhai Didor -Police witness -serving his duty as PI -submitted the chargsheet before the concerned Court. -no investigation done by this witness 15 PW-16 Exh-54 Punabhai Pratapbhai -Police witness -serving his duty as Head Constable -This witness registered the FIR of Niruben on 12/12/97. -complaint of Niruben d/o Chakubhai Bariya (A-1 herein) Exh.55 16 PW-17 Exh-60 Jivansinh Bhikhusinh Solanki -Police witness -serving his duty as PSI -I.O of this case -investigate the case and recorded statements of the witnesses. 6.3 Out of 17 witnesses 7 are complainant, victims and interested witnesses and 2 are expert witnesses and 4 are panch witnesses and 4 are police witnesses. 6.4 The oral evidence as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution were properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge. 6.5 In this case major contradictions found in prosecution version - story of the prosecution creates doubt about truthfulness of the whole case of prosecution. 7. Thus, a brief mention about nature of depositions of all the above witnesses reveal major contradictions about manner in which assault has taken place, presence of the assailant forming unlawful assembly, treatment they have taken by Medical Officer and injuries described in medical certificate reveal different story put up by the witnesses. Even, in the past various FIRs were lodged by the complainant and caused against each other; viz. Even, in the past various FIRs were lodged by the complainant and caused against each other; viz. [i] FIR No. 29 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 504, 506(2) for the incident of 02.12.1997; [ii] counter FIR No. 30 of 1997 lodged under Sections 354, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC; [iii] FIR No. 60 of 1998 for the incident dated 21.07.1998; and [iv] FIR No. 162 of 1998 for the same incident and out of which accused herein were tried in Sessions Case. 8. Following are the major contradictions for which the trial court has examined the evidence and we find no infirmity in such exercise undertaken by the trial court and thus collectively acquittal order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be in any manner contrary to law or palpably illegal warranting interference of this court in exercise of powers under Section 378 read with Section 386 of the Code. [a] PW-1 complainant stated in the complaint that when lithe complainant and victims went to collect the rickshaw during that time all the accused persons together forming unlawful assembly with weapons i.e. dhariya, teer kamtha, sticks and attacked on the complainant and his relatives including deceased. But PW-8 Parvatbhai Dhanabhai clearly deposed in the chief that he was in the home and heard some noise he shows that Subhash Chaku (A-1), Mahesh Mansukh (Complainant), Mansukh Jokhna (Father of the complainant), Hiriben (Mother of the complainant) and Parsing (Deceased) were quarreling. It means there is no unlawful assembly constituted by the accused persons. [b] PW-1 complainant further deposed that the police came at the place of Sursing Virabhai and the complainant seat in the police jeep but police did not ask any questions regarding offence and thereafter they came at the offence place and bring his mother Hiriben and then they went to took of Mansukh Jokhna at his home. [c] PW-5 Mansukh Jokhna deposed that police came at the home and brought us i.e complainant, Mansukh Jokhna and Hiriben and sent to the hospital for treatment. [d] PW-6 Hiriben Mansukh Bariya deposed that police came at the place of offence and brought her for treatment in the hospital. [e] PW-1 Complainant deposed that this witness did not regularly visit the home by rickshaw. [d] PW-6 Hiriben Mansukh Bariya deposed that police came at the place of offence and brought her for treatment in the hospital. [e] PW-1 Complainant deposed that this witness did not regularly visit the home by rickshaw. But PW-5 Mansukh Jokhna deposed in the cross-examination that the complainant had not come by rickshaw at the home. PW-6 Hiriben Mansukh deposed in the cross-examination that the complainant regularly came by the rickshaw at the home. [f] PW-1 complainant deposed that the FIR was at the Hospital after hospitalization but PW-14 PSO, PW117 PSI deposed that the FIR lodged at the place of the offence. 9. In view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.