JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Trial Court by which the respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 307/341/ 34/ 324/326 RPC read with Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 26.08.2004, ASI Surjeet Singh recorded the statement of the victim, namely, Satwant Singh at Gandhi Nagar Hospital wherein he narrated that at about 11.30 am on 26.08.2004, he along with Ajitpal Singh were going to the market to purchase kite-string when the respondents with common criminal intention intercepted them and were armed with Kirches. The accused Jaswinder Singh inflicted an injury on the right side of his belly and the accused Parvinder Singh inflicted the injury on his left upper leg, whereas the third accused caught hold of him and also beat up with kicks and blows. Thereupon he has felled down being seriously injured and Ajitpal Singh tried to save him but injuries were also inflicted on him by the accused with kirches. Thereupon the First Information Report was lodged for the offences as aforesaid and the police after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondents. 4. Learned GA submitted that the testimony of the injured eye witnesses, namely, PW-1, Satwant Singh and PW-2, Ajitpal Singh is corroborated by the medical evidence and therefore the Trial Court grossly erred in acquitting the respondents. It is, further, submitted that the injured eye witness, PW-1, Satwant Singh has named the respondents. However, the Trial Court has failed to take into account the aforesaid aspect of the matter. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment passed by the Trial Court. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From a perusal of the statement of PW-1, Satwant Singh, it is evident that after he sustained the injuries, he was taken to the operation theatre for a period of four hours and thereafter was put on ventilator. However, the statement of the aforesaid eye-witness has been recorded within two and half hours, which is improbable. Similarly, presence of PW-2, Ajitpal Singh has not been mentioned in the statement of PW-1, Satwant Singh. However, the statement of the aforesaid eye-witness has been recorded within two and half hours, which is improbable. Similarly, presence of PW-2, Ajitpal Singh has not been mentioned in the statement of PW-1, Satwant Singh. PW-2, Ajitpal Singh has not named the assailant in his statement and even the respondents who had allegedly assaulted PW-1, Satwant Singh. Besides that, another eye-witness, Bhopinder Singh has stated nothing against the accused persons and from his cross examination, nothing incriminating is forthcoming against the respondents. It is also relevant to mention that Dr. Rajni Gupta who had examined the victims was not shown the weapon of offence and no opinion was sought from her whether from the alleged weapon of offence, the injuries sustained by the victims could be caused. The Trial Court has found that the testimony of both the injured witnesses is full of contradictions and omissions. Besides that, the investigating officer has also not been examined by the prosecution for which no explanation has been offered. The Trial Court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has acquitted the respondents. It is well settled in law that even if on appreciation of evidence, two views are possible, the one which benefits the accused has to be taken. The finding recorded by the Trial Court can neither be said to be perverse nor based on no evidence. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.