JUDGMENT : ANJULI PALO, J. This appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4-1-1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul in Criminal Case No. 2371/1986, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted from the charge of offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant Bhimrao and the respondent Keshorao are relatives. The complainant settled the marriage of sister of the respondent with Sheshrao at village Bheempur, Doldhana District Betul. On 2nd June, 1986, for celebrating the ring ceremony, the complainant Bhimrao and the respondent/accused came to the village Umari to the house of Nilamber, who is brother of the complainant Bhimrao. In the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June, 1986, the complainant and the respondent were sleeping side by side in the courtyard (Aangan). Suddenly, the respondent assaulted Bhimrao with a knife, caused injuries on his neck and back. The complainant Bhimrao raised hue and cry and caught hold of the respondent. After hearing the noise of Bhimrao, Shivcharan came to the spot. He saw that the respondent held a knife in his hand, Bhimrao who was gripping with the respondent. Shivcharan snatched the knife from the respondent. After hearing the voice, so many persons namely Tenya, Mahadeo, Anandrao and Nilamber assembled at the scene of occurrence. It was stated by Bhimrao to them that the respondent assaulted him with a knife on his stomach, chest and neck. On the report of Shivcharan, Police Station Athner District Betul registered a case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. After committal the case, trial was conduced by the learned trial Court. 3. In the impugned judgment, learned trial Court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable and trustworthy. The respondent had no motive to commit the offence against the complainant. However, knife was seized from the possession of respondent, but no blood stain was found on the seized article. After considering the weakness of prosecution case, learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 4. The respondent had no motive to commit the offence against the complainant. However, knife was seized from the possession of respondent, but no blood stain was found on the seized article. After considering the weakness of prosecution case, learned trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Aforesaid finding has been challenged by the State on the grounds that evidence of prosecution witnesses Bhimrao (PW-1) and Shivcharan (PW-2) ought to have been accepted as the same is in consistence with their previous version. The medical opinion also supports their version. Learned trial Court has lost sight of the material aspect of the evidence. On the basis of minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses who are villagers, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent. It is alleged by the appellant/State that it is very important to see that after long cross-examination, the witnesses could not demolish the prosecution case. Hence, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is prayed that the respondent be punished in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside the judgment of acquittal in the case even though two views are possible. The view of the appellate Court may be more probable one. The trial Court, which has benefit of watching the manner of witnesses, is best judge of the credibility of witnesses. The reliance has been placed in the case of Sunil Kumar Shambhudayal Gupta (doctor) vs. State of Maharashtra, 2010(13) SCC 657 , V. S. Achuthanan vs. Balkrishna Pillai, (2011) 3 SCC 317 and Raja vs. State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC 506 . 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The question for consideration is that whether this Court can legally reverse the acquittal of the respondent on the basis of evidence available on record. 7. In Sheo Swarup vs. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 afford a correct guide for the appellate Court’s approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal. The question for consideration is that whether this Court can legally reverse the acquittal of the respondent on the basis of evidence available on record. 7. In Sheo Swarup vs. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 afford a correct guide for the appellate Court’s approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal. The different phraseology used in the judgment of this Court such as (I) substantial and compelling reasons (II) good and sufficiently cogent reasons (III) strong reasons are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion but it should not only evidence every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the Court below. In support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express these reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified. 8. It is settled law that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved and that is presumption of his innocence gets re-inforced with his acquittal by the trial Court verdict. A judge presides over the trial not only to ensure that no innocent is punished but also to see that guilty does not escape. It is well settled principle of law that the appellate Court has full power to review and consider the entire evidence on record on which the order of acquittal is based, so as to arrive at finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. 9. It is not in dispute that the complainant Bhimrao and respondent Keshorao are near relatives to each other and they belongs to same village. On 1st June, 1986 in the afternoon, they both came to the house of Nilamber at District Betul for celebrating the ring ceremony of sister of respondent/accused and they stayed there in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June, 1986. It is also not in dispute that at the time of incident, both were sleeping side by side in the open courtyard of Nilamber (PW-6). Aforesaid facts were admitted by the respondent in accused statement in question Nos. 1, 2 and 4. It is also not in dispute that at the time of incident, both were sleeping side by side in the open courtyard of Nilamber (PW-6). Aforesaid facts were admitted by the respondent in accused statement in question Nos. 1, 2 and 4. In question No. 10, he also admitted that at midnight, the complainant Bhimrao raised hue and cry and caught hold of the respondent. The complainant Bhimrao (PW-1) clearly stated against the respondent that the respondent caused said injuries to him by a knife and during the incident, he caught hold of the respondent with a knife and again the respondent inflicted three blows on his back. 10. It is also not in dispute that at the time of incident, Shivcharan (PW-2) and Nilamber (PW-6) were present near the spot. They were sleeping there. Shivcharan (PW-2) and Nilamber (PW-6) deposed that after hearing hue and cry of the complainant Bhimrao, they came on the spot and saw that the respondent was caught by the complainant Bhimrao along with a knife. Nilamber (PW-6) further stated that in his presence, another blow was inflicted by the respondent on the chest of complainant Bhimrao and thereafter, knife was snatched by Shivcharan (PW-2) from the respondent. The said facts are very important to implicate the respondent in crime, who attacked the complainant by knife. It is also important that at that time, presence and act of Shivcharan (PW-2) are unchallenged by the defence in accused statement. The respondent has admitted that he was caught hold by the complainant Bhimrao and thereafter by other persons who assembled there just after the incident. 11. Head Constable Deorao (PW-9) corroborated the testimony of Shivcharan (PW-2), who registered the report of Shivcharan against the respondent just after the incident on 2nd June, 1986 at about 9:20 p.m. in the police station situated about 40 kms. away from the spot. It cannot be presumed that the report could be lodged as an afterthought against the respondent, who is also near relative of Shivcharan (PW-2). In para 4 of the cross-examination, he also stated that Bhimrao was brought by Shivcharan in unconscious condition and he was not fit to give his statement. 12. In sequence of the incident, the testimony of Dr. In para 4 of the cross-examination, he also stated that Bhimrao was brought by Shivcharan in unconscious condition and he was not fit to give his statement. 12. In sequence of the incident, the testimony of Dr. S. K. Khandelwal (PW-10) has not been challenged by the respondent, which established that at the time of medical examination, the complainant sustained following injuries :— (i) incised wound 1” x ½” x 1”, 1 c.m. deep in peritoneal cavity 5 cm. below and lateral to the umbilicus (ii) incised wound 1” x ½” x ½” over left supra clavicle region with bleeding All above injuries were caused by sharp cutting object. According to the report, the injuries were caused by knife (article ‘B’). There is no material contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence. In these circumstances, it is proved that in the presence of respondent, the complainant sustained aforesaid injuries in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June, 1986. 13. Head Constable Yashwant Rao (PW-15) seized knife (article ‘B’) from the respondent. He found some blood stains in the knife during investigation. He also seized one shirt, pyjama and baniyan etc. from the respondent on 3rd June, 1986. Investigation officer Yashwant Rao found blood stains on the clothes of the respondent. In the FSL report, human blood was found on the clothes seized from the respondent. In the FSL report, blood of ‘A’ blood group is found on the shirt of victim and on the shirt, pyjama and handkerchief of the respondent and on other clothes of the complainant. It is a very important piece of evidence which involves the respondent with crime. 14. Above relevant fact has been put up before the respondent during the accused statement under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in question Nos. 42 and 43. In question No. 42, the respondent/accused has not explained why he had knife in his hand, why he was caught hold by the complainant Bhimrao and what happened at that night. At the time of incident, who was the other one who caused the injury to the complainant, why respondent’s clothes were stained with blood. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent/accused that he was caught by the complainant Bhimrao, hence, his clothes had blood stains. At the time of incident, who was the other one who caused the injury to the complainant, why respondent’s clothes were stained with blood. We are not satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent/accused that he was caught by the complainant Bhimrao, hence, his clothes had blood stains. The complainant’s blood was found not only on the shirt of respondent but also on his baniyan, pyjama and handkerchief. This evidence is corroborated by the testimony of Bhimrao (PW-1), Shivcharan (PW-2) and Nilamber (PW-6). Learned trial Court has held that because no blood stains were found on the knife as per Article ‘B’, hence it is doubtful that the seized knife was used for committing the crime. It is not a proper ground to ignore the evidence of eye witnesses. 15. It is important that this case is not based on circumstantial evidence, whereas it is based on the direct evidence of the complainant and other eyewitnesses. Hence, only for such type of weakness, the testimony of Bhimrao (PW-1), Shivcharan (PW-2) and Nilamber (PW-6) cannot be brushed aside in the criminal trial. The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything) would not be applicable. 16. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that the respondent/accused had no motive to commit crime. This case is based on the direct evidence and not on the circumstantial evidence. Hence, it is not compulsory for the prosecution to prove the motive of the accused. Only for absence of motive direct evidence cannot be ignored. In case of Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh and others vs. State of Gujarat, 2017 Cr.L.J. 149 (SC) and Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others, 2017 Cr.L.J. 291 (SC), it was held that : “It is settled legal position that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of the offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance.” 17. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence could not be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance.” 17. In the present case, Mahadeo (PW-4), Anandroa (PW-5), Ramji (PW-7) and Tenya (PW-8) were also witnesses, who assembled on the spot and they saw the respondent, who was caught hold by complainant Bhimrao. At the time of incident, they also saw knife in hand of respondent/accused, which was snatched by Shivcharan (PW-2). Testimony of these witnesses is found natural and reliable. Under section 6/8 of the Evidence Act, it is relevant in the present case. There is no reason as to why they would falsely implicate the respondent in this case. In case of Netram Chena Baghel vs. State of U.P., 2017 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 308 (All), it was held that : “Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction- Facts, though not in issue but so connected with issue, shall form part of same transactions and also be relevant.” 18. The conduct of Bhimrao (PW-1) is considerable because he is near relative of the respondent and at that time, he stayed with the accused/respondent at Nilamber’s house then why they would falsely implicate the respondent. He had no bad intention or rivalry with the accused/respondent. Similar thought is also applicable for other witnesses namely Shivcharan (PW-2), Mahadeo (PW-4), Nilamber (PW-6), Ramji (PW-7) and Tenya (PW-8). 19. With regard to some contradiction in their evidence, we find that the contradictions are not material in nature. In the case of Unnikrishnan vs. State of Kerala, 2013 Cri.L.J. 2514. It was held that :— “In appreciation of evidence, minor discrepancies in statements of witnesses occurring due to illiteracy of witness and long gap between recording of testimony of offence, not ground to discard evidence.” Some contradiction and omission are natural/normally occurred in the evidence because the incident was occurred in the year 1986 and after two or more years, their evidence was recorded in the trial Court. Hence, such type of contradictions cannot adversely affect truthfulness of the prosecution case. In case of Mahaveer Singh vs. State of M.P., 2013 Cri.L.J. 749. It was held that : “It is duty of the Court to separate chaff from husk..... Hence, such type of contradictions cannot adversely affect truthfulness of the prosecution case. In case of Mahaveer Singh vs. State of M.P., 2013 Cri.L.J. 749. It was held that : “It is duty of the Court to separate chaff from husk..... though it is natural to state variant statement due to time gap. But if such statement go to defeat core of prosecution then such contradictions are material. It is settled principle of law that if evidence of even single eyewitness, is truthful, consistent and inspiring confidence is sufficient for conviction of the accused.” 20. After over-all consideration and appreciation of evidence, we find that learned trial Court failed to consider the above aspect in the prosecution case and ignored the material facts, which duly implicated the respondent/accused with the crime. In case of Anjan Das Gupta vs. State of West Bengal and others, 2017 Cr.L.J. 529 SC, the Supreme Court has held that and it is well settled law that :— “If order of acquittal has been made on improper and erroneous appreciation of evidence, it can be set aside by the appellate Court.” In cases of Bhagwan Jagannath Markad vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017 Cri.L.J. 578 (SC) and Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura, AIR 2011 SC 3753 , it is held by the Apex Court that :— “It is the duty of the appellate Court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. If the order is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored, the appellate Court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.” 21. We find that the findings of learned trial Court were apparently perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It is not a case where two views are possible. It is a case where sufficient direct evidence is available against the respondent/accused, which corroborated by the medical evidence also. It is true that, in this case the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant sustained grievous injuries because there is no evidence with regard to any fracture caused to the complainant or he was treated in the hospital for 20 or more days. It is true that, in this case the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant sustained grievous injuries because there is no evidence with regard to any fracture caused to the complainant or he was treated in the hospital for 20 or more days. Hence, offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the respondent/accused. It is established by the prosecution that the injuries were voluntarily caused by the respondent to the complainant. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were simple in nature caused by sharp cutting object. Hence, the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is duly made out against the respondent. In case of C. Ronald and another vs. State of U.T. of Andaman and Nicobar, 2012 Cri.L.J. 672, it is held that :— “There is no restriction on the powers of the appellate Court to convert an order of acquittal into a conviction.” 22. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, we find that the findings of the learned trial Court are perverse and against the evidence on record. Learned trial Court lost sight to consider material aspects of the evidence and comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. Therefore, the appeal presented by the State is hereby allowed. The findings of learned trial Court are hereby set aside. We hold that the prosecution has successfully proved that the respondent voluntarily caused simple injuries to the complainant Bhimrao in the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June,1986. 23. The result is appeal partly succeeds. We find the respondent is guilty of the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, respondent is convicted for offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. With regard to the sentence, the respondent is facing trial since the year 1986 for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. He was in custody about 3 months and 26 days. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we sentence the respondent for offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, three months R.I. is awarded. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- be provided to the complainant Bhimrao as compensation under section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, three months R.I. is awarded. If fine is deposited then, a sum of Rs. 3,000/- be provided to the complainant Bhimrao as compensation under section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 24. Office is directed to transmit the record immediately to the trial Court with a copy of this judgment. The respondent/accused shall appear before the trial Court on 15-9-2017. Upon his failure to do so, the trial Court, under intimation to registry, shall take forthwith necessary steps as per law to see that order of this Court is duly carried out. Ordered accordingly.