JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1997 delivered on 14-8-2001, thereby acquitting the respondents/accused of the offence punishable under section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard Mrs. S. Z. Haider, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. P. W. Mirza, the learned Counsel for the respondents. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. 3. The prosecution case can be summarized in nutshell as under :- (PW-1) Complainant Ramesh Tulshiram Bundele as well as the accused persons were the residents of taluka Achalpur. On 8-11-1996, in between 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm, a quarrel took place between complainant’s son (PW-3) Anup and Sadiq (accused No. 1) and Sabir (accused No. 2) for the reason that accused Nos. 1 and 2 obstructed PW-3-Anup from taking the she-buffaloes at cattle pond. PW-3 informed about the said incident to his father (PW-1) Ramesh on telephone. On receipt of the said message, (PW-1) Ramesh proceeded to his house. At that time, the people from the locality pacified PW-3 as well the accused Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, at about 9.30 pm, PW-1 was having tea at the hotel of one Chaudhary, near Laxmi talkies. At that time, Sadiq (accused No. 1), Sabir (accused No. 2) and their maternal uncle Babbu @ Salim (accused No. 3) arrived at the hotel. The accused persons said that PW-1 had become very furious. On saying this, suddenly accused No. 3 dealt a sickle blow to PW-1, Sadiq (accused No. 1) dealt a knife blow on his stomach and Sabir (accused No. 2) caught hold of PW-1. PW-1 screamed as ‘save, save’. On hearing the hue and cry of PW-1, the people from the locality gathered at that place and intervened the quarrel. 4. At the relevant time PSI-Arjun Berad was PSI at Paratwada Police Station. He referred PW-1 to the Cottage Hospital at Achalpur for medical treatment (Exhibit-26). PW-10 then made enquiry with the (PW-5) Dr. Ashok Thakary, the Medical Officer as to whether PW-1 was in a fit condition to give his statement. On obtaining the opinion of PW-5 that the patient was in conscious condition and able to give his statement, PW-10 recorded the complaint of Ramesh (PW-1). PW-10 then made enquiry with the (PW-5) Dr. Ashok Thakary, the Medical Officer as to whether PW-1 was in a fit condition to give his statement. On obtaining the opinion of PW-5 that the patient was in conscious condition and able to give his statement, PW-10 recorded the complaint of Ramesh (PW-1). On the basis of the said complaint, he registered the offence under section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital, Achalpur then referred the PW-1 to General Hospital, Amravati (Irvin Hospital). PW-1 was admitted in the said hospital from 8-11- 1996 to 24-11-1996. On 9-11-1996, the statement of PW-1 was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, PW-10 was handed over the charge of further investigation to (PW-11) PSI Ujjwal Gaikwad. On 9-11-1996, (PW-11) PSI Ujjwal Gaikwad arrested Mohd. Sabir (accused No. 2). Accused No. 2 showed his willingness to point out the place where he had hidden the weapons which were kept in the wooden box in his house. The memorandum panchanama was drawn accordingly (Exhibit-51). PW-11 then took charge of the said weapons i.e. razor, knife and sickle from the house of accused No. 2 in the presence of two panchas vide Exhibit-52. PW-11 then collected the clothes of injured Ramesh (PW-1) vide panchanama (Exhibit-28). PW-11 recorded the supplementary statement of injured Ramesh. Then he handed over the investigation to (PW-12) API Shankarsingh Rajput. PW-12 arrested the accused No. 1. He took charge of his clothes vide panchanama (Exhibit-57). PW-12 visited the place of incident and recorded the spot panchanama (Exhibit-41). He arrested Sabir (accused No. 2) as well as Babbu (accused No. 3) on 9-11-1996. During the course of investigation, PW-12 recorded the statements of witnesses. After the completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned trial Judge framed the charge. After conducting the trial and analysing the evidence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused as aforesaid. 5. Mrs. S. Z. Haider, the learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that the judgment of the trial Court is illegal and perverse and as much as the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence of the injured as well as the eyewitnesses. After conducting the trial and analysing the evidence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused as aforesaid. 5. Mrs. S. Z. Haider, the learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that the judgment of the trial Court is illegal and perverse and as much as the learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence of the injured as well as the eyewitnesses. She contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have convicted the accused, on the basis of the testimony of the injured and eye-witnesses and would have considered that the injured has received so many injures on his vital part of the body. 6. Mr. P. W. Mirza, the learned Counsel for the accused canvassed that no doubt the injured has deposed before the Court and stated about the injuries received by him, however, the injures are not corresponding to the weapons taken charge by the Police at the instance of accused No. 2 Sabir. He further contended that there are many discrepancies in the testimony of injured as well as the alleged eye-witnesses which go to the root of the case and create the entire prosecution case doubtful. 7. In order to consider the rival contentions of the learned APP as well the learned Counsel for the accused, it would be advantageous to go through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses; Ramesh (PW-1), Narayan (PW-2) and Dr. Ashok (PW-5) who is the Medical Officer. 8. According to PW-1, on the date of incident at 6.00 to 7.00 pm, he along with his wife had gone to the field. Shebuffaloes of one Sakhare were grazing in his field. Therefore, he asked his son Anup (PW-3) for taking the she-buffaloes at cattle pond. Thereafter his son Anup had taken that she-buffaloes towards the cattle pond. While PW-1 with his wife returned to his house, after about half an hour he received phone call from his son (PW-3) that accused Nos. 1 and 2 restrained him from taking the she-buffaloes in the cattle pond. PW-1 proceeded to Bilanpura. He noticed that 5/6 persons had gathered at that place. He convinced that she-buffaloes were not belonging to them but they were belonging to one Sakhare. The people from the locality gathered there and they pacified them. Thereafter PW-3 Anup lodged the complaint with Achalpur Police Station, regarding the obstruction by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for keeping she-buffaloes in the cattle pond. He convinced that she-buffaloes were not belonging to them but they were belonging to one Sakhare. The people from the locality gathered there and they pacified them. Thereafter PW-3 Anup lodged the complaint with Achalpur Police Station, regarding the obstruction by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 for keeping she-buffaloes in the cattle pond. At about 7.30 pm PW-1 was near Laxmi talkies in a hotel. While he was having tea with his friend Habib Shamsherkha, Sabir (accused No. 2) appeared before him and suddenly Sabir inflicted injury by means of razor on his neck. Thereafter, Sabir (accused No. 2) caught hold of his waist. Accused No. 2 came there and inflicted the injury by means of small knife on his stomach. Accused No. 3 dealt a blow of sickle on his left hand. PW-1 then came on road and by auto rickshaw he went to Paratwada Police Station. The police from Paratwada Police Station took him at Cottage Hospital. The statement of PW-1 was recorded by the Police in the Cottage Hospital (Exhibit-26). The Medical Officer from the Cottage Hospital referred PW-1 to Irvin Hospital, Amravati. 9. On careful scrutiny of PW-1 it is noticed that there are discrepancies in his statement with regard to the fact that accused No. 1 came to that place and obstructed him and threatened him with dire consequences. There is also an improvement in his version that his father came to that place and pacified them. According to PW-1 after having tea, he noticed that suddenly Mohd. Sabir (accused No. 2) came to that place and inflicted injury on his neck by means of razor and accused No. 2 caught hold of his waist. After making an improvement in his version he stated that accused No. 2 came there and inflicted injury on his stomach by means of small knife while accused No. 3 dealt a sickle blow on his left hand. If the First Information Report (Exhibit-26) is compared to the testimony of PW-1, it is noticed that there is glaring discrepancy with regard to the role of accused No. 2 that accused No. 2 give a razor blow on his neck. Similarly, there is no mention in FIR about accused No. 3 giving a blow of sickle on his left hand or neck. The report (Exhibit-26) reveals that Babbu @ Salim Khan (accused No. 3) dealt a sickle blow to PW-1. Similarly, there is no mention in FIR about accused No. 3 giving a blow of sickle on his left hand or neck. The report (Exhibit-26) reveals that Babbu @ Salim Khan (accused No. 3) dealt a sickle blow to PW-1. The accused No. 3 dealt a knife blow to his stomach and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were caught hold of his waist. These are the improvements made by PW-1 while deposing before the Court. While giving the statement before the Special Judicial Magistrate, the PW-1 made an improvement by stating that the accused No. 2 dealt a razor blow on his neck, gave fight on his face and dealt a knife blow on his stomach and accused No. 3 Babbu @ Salim Khan dealt a Sickle blow on his hand and neck. PW-1 narrated the improved story that accused No. 2 gave a fight on his face and accused No. 3 dealt a sickle blow on his hand and neck. The supplementary statement of PW-1 indicates that there was an improvement in the version of PW-1 to the effect that the Mohd. Sabir (accused No. 2) dealt a razor blow on his head, face and back. In the supplementary statement he has stated that Sadiq (accused No. 1) dealt a knife blow on his stomach and Babbu (accused No. 3) dealt a sickle blow on his left hand wrist. Thus, there are improvements in the version of PW-1. As per the statement recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate PW-1 stated that the accused No. 3 dealt a sickle blow on his neck and accused No. 2 did not give fight on his mouth. Thus there is no consistency in the testimony of PW-1 as compared to Exhibit-26 i.e. the statement of PW-1 before the Executive Magistrate and the statement record by the Police. All these discrepancies go to the root of the case and creates a serious doubt about the alleged incident and the manner in which the alleged incident had taken place. 10. Narayan (PW-2) deposed before the Court that at about 9.30 pm PW-1 met him near Laxmi talkies. They both had tea at tea stall. After having tea, he went to the grocery shop for bringing articles. After some time he witnessed from the shop that people had gathered, therefore, he rushed to that place. 10. Narayan (PW-2) deposed before the Court that at about 9.30 pm PW-1 met him near Laxmi talkies. They both had tea at tea stall. After having tea, he went to the grocery shop for bringing articles. After some time he witnessed from the shop that people had gathered, therefore, he rushed to that place. He saw that the accused were beating to PW-1 by means of sickle, knife and razor. He asked not to beat PW-1. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away from that place. On careful scrutiny of the testimony of PW-2 it is found that he has not witnessed the actual incident and it appears that he reached the place of incident after the incident was over. PW-2 specifically stated that it has not happened before him while taking tea that accused No. 1 dealt a knife blow, accused No. 2 dealt a razor blow and accused No. 3 dealt a sickle blow to PW-1. He admitted that he had not seen as to which accused had razor, which accused had knife and which accused had sickle with him. He could not see as to by which weapon the accused had dealt the blows on PW-1. He admitted that he had not stated the names of the accused to the Police. The testimony of PW-2 does not inspire confidence and from his testimony it can be simply gathered that he reached to the place of incident after the actual incident of assault was over. 11. Now coming to the Medical evidence. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of (PW-5) Dr. Ashok Thakare. PW-5 deposed that he examined patient Ramesh and noticed the following injuries on his person. “1. Incised wound on right epigastric region, cavity deep horizontally placed, sized 7 inches x 2 inches x cavity deep. 2. Incised would on right fore-arm, transverly placed size 3 inches x 1 inch into boney deep. 3. Incised wound on left eyebrow, vertically placed size 4 Inches x ½ x ½ Inches. 4. Incised wound on forehead, transverly placed size 1 Inch x ½ and ½ Inch. 5. Incised wound on left thumb 1 Inch x ½ Inch x ½ Inch. 6. Incised would below left eye 1½ x ¼ x ¼ Inches bleeding positive. 7. Incised wound Horizontally in direction on neck right side below mandibular angle towards back side up to survical spine. 5. Incised wound on left thumb 1 Inch x ½ Inch x ½ Inch. 6. Incised would below left eye 1½ x ¼ x ¼ Inches bleeding positive. 7. Incised wound Horizontally in direction on neck right side below mandibular angle towards back side up to survical spine. Size 8 x ½ x ¼ Inch. It was fresh and bleeding. 8. Incised wound on upper side of scalf vertically placed size 2 inch x ½ x ½ Inch fresh bleeding was positive. 9. Incised would on 1 Inch front of right tear vertically placed 4 x ½ x ¼ Inch It was fresh.” 12. PW-5 opined that all the injuries were caused to the patient by hard and blunt object. He issued Medical Certificate of (PW-1) Ramesh (Exhibit-38). PW- 5 then referred the patient to General Hospital, Amravati. PW-5 further deposed that, on 20-11-1996, the Police brought the weapons and asked his opinion whether the injuries mentioned in the certificate were possible by the referred weapons. PW-5 opined that the injuries on the person of Ramesh were possible due to referred weapons. He issued the certificate in this regard (Exhibit-39). During the cross-examination PW-5 has admitted that, he had not mentioned as to by which particular weapon the injury was caused to the victim. He admitted that he had not indicated the width of any of the weapons. PW-5 specifically stated that whoever dealt a blow by knife to the stomach it will be stab injury by straight and for the length of 4 to 7 inches injury the weapon ought to have been required more than 4 inches in length. He further stated that he does not remember whether the weapons were brought in a sealed condition or not. The testimony of PW-5 is inconsistent with the evidence that the seized weapon knife admeasuring 7 inches x 2 inches which is admeasuring 3 inches x 2.5 inches is not sufficient to cause the injury admeasuring 7 inches x 2 inches. From the testimony of PW-5 it is not clear as to which particular injury received by PW-1 was caused by the weapon like knife, razor and sickle. The size of the weapon does not match and correspond with the dimensions of the injuries mentioned by PW-5. 13. In this context the testimony of ASI Shankarsingh (PW-12) is very important. From the testimony of PW-5 it is not clear as to which particular injury received by PW-1 was caused by the weapon like knife, razor and sickle. The size of the weapon does not match and correspond with the dimensions of the injuries mentioned by PW-5. 13. In this context the testimony of ASI Shankarsingh (PW-12) is very important. He had admitted in his cross-examination that there was difference relating to the measurement of the weapons mentioned in the seizure memo and the measurement taken by the Medical Officer PW-5 (Exhibit-52). Exhibit 39 indicates that PW-5 has examined and measured the weapons referred to him by the Investigating Officer (PW-12). PW-5 had given the measurement of razor as the length was 2.5 inches sharp edged and its handle length was 2.5 inches. The length of the handle of knife was 2.5 inches while the length of sharp edged knife was 3 inches and the blunt edge was 5 inches. Thus, the length of the shape edge of the sickle was 8.5 inches. In this context the seizure panchanama of the weapon (Exhibit-52) depicts the length of razor was 7 inches and length of the handle was 4 inches and 2 inches was the sharp edge. The length of the knife was 5.5 inches and handle was 2.5 inches and sharp edge 3.5 inches. The length of the sickle was shown as 20.5 inches and the sharp edge is 6.5 inches. There is certainly discrepancy in the description and size of the weapons seized under seizure panchanama (Exhibit-52) and the measurement taken by the Medical Officer (PW-5) at Exhibit 33. Thus, there is a glaring discrepancy in the description of the weapons given by the Investigating Officer (PW-12) and the weapons which were examined by the Medical Officer (PW-5). Similarly, there is discrepancy in the measurement of the weapons and the injuries explained by the Medical Officer (PW-5). In view of the discrepancies, it is doubtful, whether the weapons which were taken charge by the Investigating Officer are the same weapons which were used in the offence by the accused persons while inflicting injuries on the complainant. Similarly, there is discrepancy in the measurement of the weapons and the injuries explained by the Medical Officer (PW-5). In view of the discrepancies, it is doubtful, whether the weapons which were taken charge by the Investigating Officer are the same weapons which were used in the offence by the accused persons while inflicting injuries on the complainant. As far as the seizure of the weapon is concerned, the testimony of PW-12 reveals that he had admitted in his cross-examination that on 9-11-1996 to 11-11-1996 all the three accused told him that they do not know at which place they had kept the weapons. Thus, the seizure of weapons is also doubtful. 14. On perusal of the entire evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution case appears to be doubtful even the Medical Officer (PW-5) has not opined as to whether any of the injury was sufficient to cause death of the complainant. There are glaring discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1 with regard to the incident. PW-1 although stated that he has received the injury on his head, however, he has not whispered as to who was the perpetrator of the said head injury. The testimony of Dr. Baliram (PW-13) who is the Radiologist does not disclose any injury to the head of victim. PW-13 did not find any injury to the skull of the patient. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances above, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had intention to commit murder of the complainant (PW-1). The other alleged eye-witnesses do not throw any light on the aspect of the incident. In view of the facts and circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. There is no perversity or illegality noticed in the judgment of the trial Court. It is well settled principle of law in an appeal against order of acquittal, if two views are possible on the basis of material available on record, view taken by trial Court in favour of accused should not be disturbed unless the said view is illegal or perverse. In my opinion, the learned Judge has correctly appreciated the facts brought on record by the prosecution. Nothing is brought on record by the prosecution, to intervene in the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.