JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Initially, the appellant, who was informant in Lakhisarai Pipariya P.S. Case No. 11 of 2006, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 673 of 2006 had filed a Criminal Revision vide Criminal Revision No. 123 of 2010 under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment of acquittal dated: 21st November, 2009 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IVth, Lakhisarai (hereinafter referred to as the “trial judge”). By the said judgment the learned trial judge has acquitted all the three accused who were put on trial for commission of offence under Sections 323, 341, 325, 337, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.P.C.”). After filing of Criminal Revision vide order dated: 10.05.2012 in view of provision contained under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the Revisional-petitioner was permitted to convert the Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal, and as such, the Criminal Revision was converted into Criminal Appeal vide CR. APP (DB) No. 633 of 2012. However, at the time of permitting learned counsel to convert the Criminal Revision into Criminal Appeal, since opposite party/respondent no. 4 died, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant was permitted to expunge the name of opposite party/respondent no. 4. Accordingly, his name was expunged from the record. 2. Short fact of the case is that on 03.01.2006 at about 19.00 Hours (7.00 P.M.) fardbyan of Kamal Kumari Devi (appellant) resident of village: Ram Chandrapur, P.S.-Piparia, District- Lakhisarai was recorded by Sub Inspector of Police Sri Surendra Giri, O/c Piparia Police Station. The fardbyan was recorded at Ram Chandrapur. Meaning thereby, that it was recorded in the village, but in the fardbyan it was not indicated as to at which place, whether it was the place of occurrence or at the residence of the informant, same was recorded. In the fardbyan the appellant (informant) disclosed that on 03.01.2006 at about 1.30 P.M. she was preparing to cover the damaged portion of wall through TATI (partition by straw) and for the said purpose she was digging land for fixing a pole. In the meanwhile, respondent nos. 2 and 3 with Kameshwar Sharma, whose name was deleted subsequently, arrived there and tried to prevent her from proceeding with the work. In the meanwhile, respondent nos. 2 and 3 with Kameshwar Sharma, whose name was deleted subsequently, arrived there and tried to prevent her from proceeding with the work. In the meanwhile, some altercation took place and thereafter, on the order of Kameshwar Sharma, two respondents i.e. respondent nos. 2 and 3 started assaulting the informant. In the meanwhile, Bhabhi of the informant from roof started to come down to save the informant, however, respondent no. 2 (Manoj Sharma) threw a brick with intent to kill her, which hit the head of informant’s bhabhi namely: Mani Devi (P.W. 4). Due to said injury she became unconscious. In the said occurrence, besides receiving other injuries, the informant also received fracture injury of right little finger. In the occurrence, it was also alleged by the informant, that accused persons had snatched golden bangle from the hand of informant. On the basis of the said fardbyan a formal F.I.R. vide Lakhisarai Pipariya P.S. Case No. 11 of 2006 was registered for offence under Sections 323, 341, 337, 307, 379, 34 of the I.P.C. 3. After drawing formal F.I.R., Police investigated the case, and thereafter, charge- sheet was submitted. Since charge-sheet was submitted against the accused also under Section 307 of the I.P.C., which was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was subsequently committed to the court of Sessions, and as such, it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 673 of 2006. Thereafter, on 9th April, 2007 joint charge under Sections 323, 341, 325, 337 and 307 of the I.P.C. was framed against three accused persons, which includes respondent nos. 2 and 3. 4. To prove its case, from the prosecution side altogether six witnesses were examined, however amongst six prosecution witnesses, except P.W. 5 and P.W. 6, who were doctor and Investigating Officer respectively, other two witnesses were injured witness and remaining two witnesses were close relatives of the informant. In the case it was shown that witnesses namely -Kamal Kumari Devi (P.W. 3) and Mani Devi (P.W. 4) had received injuries, whereas, Sita Devi (P.W. 1) is the niece of informant and P.W. 2 (Ramjapo Kumar) is the nephew of informant. In the case none of the independent witnesses were examined. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they denied charges. 5. In the case none of the independent witnesses were examined. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they denied charges. 5. From the accused side also altogether seven witnesses were examined. Besides oral evidence, on behalf of the defence some documentary evidences were also brought on record (i.e. Exhibit-A and Exhibit-B) to show that dispute in between the parties was going on since long. It was the case of defence that the informant had received injuries fifteen days back from the date of occurrence when she fell down from stair at the time of plucking vegetable. A defence was also taken that prior to the occurrence nephew of the informant had destroyed the vegetable field containing tomato of the accused’ side, for which, a panchayati was held. In the said panchayati fine was imposed on informant’s side, which was not paid. The learned trial judge examined entire evidence and was of the opinion that injury report, which was initially shown to be prepared by the Investigating Officer was ante dated, which was marked as Exhibit- 2 and injury report prepared by the doctor i.e. P.W. 5 was marked as Exhibit- 2/1. The learned trial judge has also noticed that injury, which was examined by P.W. 5 was also not having any element to attract provision under Section 307 of the I.P.C. Learned trial judge has also raised suspicion on such injury report considering the fact that the doctor, who was shown to examine the injured in his evidence has stated that he was not maintaining any register. Besides this, the doctor without X-Ray report or any expert’s opinion has also recorded in the injury report that the informant had received fracture injury of her right little finger. The learned trial judge noticed that in absence of any X-Ray report the doctor was not at all required to record any such finding. The learned trial judge also noticed that there was serious contradiction in the oral evidence. Some of the witnesses, even informant, deposed as if her fardbyan was recorded in the Police Station, however, on perusal of the fardbyan, which was marked as Exhibit-1 wherein it has specifically been mentioned that fardbyan was recorded in Ram Chandrapur i.e. a village. The learned trial judge also noticed that there was serious contradiction in the oral evidence. Some of the witnesses, even informant, deposed as if her fardbyan was recorded in the Police Station, however, on perusal of the fardbyan, which was marked as Exhibit-1 wherein it has specifically been mentioned that fardbyan was recorded in Ram Chandrapur i.e. a village. Had it been recorded in the Police Station, the Police Officer who had recorded the fardbyan would have certainly mentioned that fardbyan was recorded in the Police Station. 6. Since there was serious contradiction in the oral evidence, besides non-reliable documentary evidence, the learned trial judge discussing all those things, by a reasoned order, has passed judgment of acquittal. Prima facie on examination of the judgment impugned as well as evidence on record, we are satisfied that there is no perversity in the judgment warranting interference. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade the Court that the learned trial judge has not considered the evidence in its right perspective and passed judgment of acquittal. On examination of the injury report pertaining to injury received on the head of P.W. 4 (Mani Devi) it is evident that injury was only skin deep. There is no evidence of repetition of even throwing of brick. Meaning thereby, that there was lack of basic ingredient for attraction of Section 307 of the I.P.C., even then, it appears that Police, in a mechanical manner, had submitted charge-sheet and the learned court below also without examining the same had taken cognizance and committed the case to the court of Sessions and the learned trial judge has also committed serious error in framing charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. besides application of other Sections of the I.P.C. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any apparent error in the judgment of acquittal. Moreover, at the time of hearing of Appeal against acquittal, we are not required to examine the evidence in a different manner. Once the evidence has been appreciated by the trial judge and a finding has been recorded, in Appeal against acquittal unless there is error of record or there is perversity in the judgment, this Court may refrain from interfering. Accordingly, we do not find any such element for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Once the evidence has been appreciated by the trial judge and a finding has been recorded, in Appeal against acquittal unless there is error of record or there is perversity in the judgment, this Court may refrain from interfering. Accordingly, we do not find any such element for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, judgment of acquittal dated: 21.11.2009 passed by Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IVth, Lakhisarai in Sessions Case No. 673 of 2006 [arising out of Lakhisarai Pipariya P.S. Case No. 11 of 2006] is approved. The Appeal against acquittal stands dismissed.