JUDGMENT Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - The present appeal is preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and order dated 11.08.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bali in Sessions Case No.62/2005, vide which the respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302, 307 and 323 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that an FIR came to be registered on 18.05.2005 at 6:30 a.m. on the statement of Smt. Jangaal Kanwar (Ex.P/12) made before the A.S.I., Narayan Lal, Police Station Falna at 6:00 a.m. that she was a resident of Khudala and her husband and Hari Singh are real brothers and they are living separately. They are residing at Bera Khetawa with family for last 15-20 years. There are five shares in Bera Khetawa, namely, Amar Singh, Chhailsingh, Heer Singh, Hari Singh and Mal Singh. On 17.05.2005 after taking food, they went off to sleep in the compound. Her husband Heer Singh was sleeping in open chowk at some distance. At about 12 O'clock in the night, a big stone was hurled by two persons on them due to which they sustained injuries on their head. On raising noise, both of them ran away. However, no one came for their rescue as no one heard. She identified one accused as Karan Singh and another was identified by her daughter Santosh as Mahendra Singh. She panicked and called out to her husband but he was unconscious. She saw that blood was oozing out from the head of her husband. She stayed with her husband while she sent her daughter to call the neighbours. There was enmity on the issue of opening of the gate with Hari Singh and for last three years they were not talking to each other. Due to this enmity, Karan Singh S/o Hari Singh and Mahendra Singh, with an intention to kill them, hurled stones on their head resulting into grievous injuries. 3. After investigation, challan was filed for the offence under Section 302, 307 and 323 of IPC against respondents-Karan Singh and under section 299 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence under Section 302, 307, 323 of IPC against Mahendra Singh. The charges were framed under Sections 302, 307, 323 and in alternate 302/34, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC. 4. 3. After investigation, challan was filed for the offence under Section 302, 307 and 323 of IPC against respondents-Karan Singh and under section 299 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for the offence under Section 302, 307, 323 of IPC against Mahendra Singh. The charges were framed under Sections 302, 307, 323 and in alternate 302/34, 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC. 4. During trial, the prosecution produced as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents in evidence. The statement of accused-respondents were recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 The defence did not lead any evidence. 5. Smt. Jangaal Kanwar is the complainant. She appeared as PW-16. She is also the injured witness and she is the wife of the deceased-Heer Singh. Santosh appeared as PW-17. She is also the injured witness and the daughter of the deceased. They appeared and corroborated their statements made before the police. They alleged that they were having the dispute over the opening of the gate with Hari Singh. Hari Singh is the real brother of her husband Heer Singh. On fateful night, Karan Singh son of Hari Singh i.e. the nephew of the deceased along with one Mahendra Singh had killed her husband by hitting him with stone, who was sleeping outside the house. They saw both Karan Singh and Mahendra Singh when accused came inside and hit Jangaal Kanwar and her daughter Santosh with the stone. However, they woke up and started screaming on which both of them ran away. Jor Singh (PW-1), Hira Lal @ Hira Ram (PW-2) and Musthak Ali (PW-3) are the neighbours and appeared as prosecution witness. Three of them made similar statements. They all admitted that they came immediately on being called by Santosh who came to their house to call them in the middle of the night. However, they denied that Santosh took the name of Karan Singh or Mahendra Singh. As per these witnesses, Santosh said that some thief had killed her father and also tried to kill them. Santosh did not name anyone. It is further stated by Mustak Ali (PW-3) that it was dark and Santosh even borrowed torch from him as there was no electricity in the village. The stone was recovered from the spot where the deceased was lying. The same was recovered in the presence of recovery witnesses PW-4 Chail Singh and PW-5 Shaitan Singh. It is further stated by Mustak Ali (PW-3) that it was dark and Santosh even borrowed torch from him as there was no electricity in the village. The stone was recovered from the spot where the deceased was lying. The same was recovered in the presence of recovery witnesses PW-4 Chail Singh and PW-5 Shaitan Singh. The recovery witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5 turned hostile. No other weapon was recovered. 6. After trial, both the accused Karan Singh and Mahendra Singh were acquitted on the ground that the statements of injured witnesses have not been corroborated to the extent of naming the two accused by Smt. Jangaal Kanwar (PW-16) and Santosh (PW-17) at the first instance when Santosh came in the middle of the night to call the neighbours. Secondly, only one stone was recovered from where the deceased was lying but no stone was recovered from the compound where the two injured witnesses were sleeping. In case, they were also hit by the stone as stated the stone should have been found in the compound. 7. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondents were heard. We perused the statements and evidence available on record. 8. PW-13 Gopal Singh is the son of the real sister of deceased Heer Singh. He appeared as prosecution witness and submitted that he had gone to see Heer Singh when he was in the hospital and met his maternal aunt Smt. Jangaal Kanwar. Her daughter Santosh was also there and when he asked Santosh as to how the incident took place and who inflicted injury, she said that she did not recognize the persons as she only saw their back and they had covered their face with cloth. 9. No doubt, the testimony of an injured witness is important as he/she had sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence unless it is proved that the said injuries are self inflicted. 10. In the present case, there is no doubt about the injuries having been received by Smt.Jangaal Kawnar and Santosh during the incident but in spite of the same, there is no way to connect the respondent Karan Singh and Mahendra Singh as those who have committed the crime. Our view is strengthened from the following facts which have emerged from the evidence on record:- 11. Our view is strengthened from the following facts which have emerged from the evidence on record:- 11. It is admitted by the injured witnesses that there was enmity between the two families. The motive is always a double edged weapon. It can always be used even for making a false allegation. In case, the allegation against the accused is to be believed, then the assailants would have come prepared to carry out their intention to kill. The said intention does not seem to be forthcoming in the present case. The assailants were admittedly not carrying any weapon except a stone. The deceased Heer Singh did not die immediately. He felt unconscious. He was rushed to the hospital. As per the injury report (Ex.P/9) of Heer Singh, the following injuries were found:- S. No. Type of injury/cut/scar etc. Size of  injury On  which part of the body Nature of injury Simple/ grievous What type of weapon used Identification mark of patient X-  ray Duration of injury 1 Lacerated wound, fresh bleeding 5 cm X % cm Rt. Parietal Region of Head Opinion reserved for X-ray and CT Scan report is received Blunt A black ti on Rt. Iliac crest Region All the  injuries  are  within 14 hours  duration 2 Lacerated wound, fresh bleeding 3.5 cm x / cm x / cm Rt. Temporal Regional of Head m Blunt 12. As per X-ray report of Heer Singh dated 18.05.2005, no bone injury was seen. Subsequently, as per the post-mortem report, the cause of death was found to be head injury and this time, even the fracture in the skull of both sides was seen. The medical negligence in the present case, therefore, cannot be ruled out. The injuries on the two injured witnesses is stated to be with the stone although no stone was found on the spot. The assailants ran away as soon as two witnesses, who both are women, got up and started making noise. Normally, assailants who have come with the intention of killing in the middle of the night, will come prepared to be able to carry out their intention and not run away just because the proposed victim has got up from sleep, unless the intention was only to make the occupants of the house unconscious and thereafter, commit theft. Normally, assailants who have come with the intention of killing in the middle of the night, will come prepared to be able to carry out their intention and not run away just because the proposed victim has got up from sleep, unless the intention was only to make the occupants of the house unconscious and thereafter, commit theft. In fact, all the witnesses, more particularly PW-13 Gopal Singh while denying that the two injured witnesses named the assailants at the first instance, also stated that as per the eyewitness Santosh and Smt. Jangaal kanwar, the assailants had covered their faces. It was also stated to be dark as there was no electricity in the village and Santosh had asked for a torch from PW-3 Mustak Ali. Thus, the only possibility seems to be that the two of them, namely, Karan Singh and Mahendra Singh were named on mere suspicion due to the enmity between them. 13. The Apex Court in the case of Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2007) along with other connected appeals, decided on 04.07.2011, although has upheld the order of conviction passed by the High Court while reversing the order of acquittal, issued warning in para 28 of the judgment, as under:- "28. This Court time and again has laid down the guidelines for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the Appellate Court may be more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. Interference with the order of acquittal is permissible only in "exceptional circumstances" for "compelling reasons". The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court." 14. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of scrutiny by the appellate court." 14. In view of the above discussion we find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the judgment of the learned court below does not call for any interference. 15. Dismissed accordingly.