JUDGMENT : P.D. Naik, J. 1. This Appeal is preferred by State of Maharashtra by invoking Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13th September, 2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sangola, District-Solapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 144 of 1995. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as under: (a) Baburao Palsande (P.W. 1) was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat village Sangola, District-Solapur. Accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 were insisting that he should resign from the post of Sarpanch. However, P.W. 1 refused to do so. Hence, there was a rivalry between them. (b) On 10th July, 1995, PW. 1 met Vithal Dhaygude, uncle of accused no. 1 and told him that he should pay Rs. 7,000/- to him. On the same day, in the evening at about 6:30 p.m., while the complainant was walking, accused no. 3 Dattatray Dhaygude called the complainant (P.W. 1). As he turned back, accused no. 1 came there with stick and hit him on right hand. Accused no. 3 hit him with stick on his back. Accused no. 2 gave stick blow, accused no. 4 gave stick blow on the right hand wrist. Accused nos. 5 and 6 gave fist blows to the complainant. (c) Police patil Shivaji Shankar Patil and Manohar Raut rescued complainant and took him to the College hospital in a jeep. Police arrived at the hospital, where statement of injured Baburao Palsande (P.W. 1) came to be recorded which is treated as FIR vide C.R. No. 78 of 1995. Complainant was discharged on next day and was advised to go to Civil Hospital at Solapur for further treatment. (d) Respondents were impleaded as accused nos. 1 to 6. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was fled. 3. Respondents were tried before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Solapur, vide R.C.C. No. 144 of 1995 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504 and 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). Charge was framed vide Exhibit 23 on 18th August, 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 read with 149, 504 read with 149 and 506 read with 149 of IPC. 4. Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Baburao Palsande is the complainant and injured witness. Charge was framed vide Exhibit 23 on 18th August, 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 read with 149, 504 read with 149 and 506 read with 149 of IPC. 4. Prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Baburao Palsande is the complainant and injured witness. P.W. 2 Kamal Dhaygude is the eye witness, P.W. 3 Manohar Raut is also the eye-witness. However, he did not support the prosecution case. P.W. 4 Shivaji Patil is the Police Patil, but, he did not support the prosecution case and hence declared hostile. P.W. 5 Dattatraya Nimbalkar was the eye witness to the incident. P.W. 6 Anirudha Dukhate, was the panch to the spot panchanama. He was declared hostile. P.W. 7 Ashok Yadav was purportedly the eye witness to the incident, however, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. P.W. 8 Prakash Gaikwad is the panch for recovery of sticks. He was declared hostile. P.W. 9 Dr. Jeevan Waidande was working as a Medical Officer in the Rural Hospital at Sangola. He had examined the injured P.W. 1 and issued Medical certificate Exhibit-67. P.W. 10 Dr. Pandurang Burute, was the Medical Officer attached to Civil Hospital at Solapur. He examined P.W. 1 and issued Medical Certificate Exhibit-80. 5. Trial Court after recording evidence of the witnesses and the statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. acquitted the accused for all the offences vide judgment and order dated 13th September, 2002. 6. The aforesaid judgment is under challenge in the present Appeal. By order dated 18th March, 2004, this Court had admitted the Appeal against accused-Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 only for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. 7. Learned APP pointed out the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. He also took me to the documents exhibited by the prosecution in support of its case. It is submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting accused. Although some of the witnesses have turned hostile, the injured (P.W. 1) and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There was sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the respondent-accused. 8. It is further submitted that the medical evidence and the ocular evidence of the witnesses corroborate each other. Although some of the witnesses have turned hostile, the injured (P.W. 1) and other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There was sufficient evidence to prove the charge against the respondent-accused. 8. It is further submitted that the medical evidence and the ocular evidence of the witnesses corroborate each other. Although there are minor discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, it is not fatal to the prosecution case. The complainant had sustained injuries on account of assault by the accused. There is no reason to discard the evidence of injured witness which was supported by the other witnesses. The Medical Officers who had examined the injured has specifically stated that the injured had sustained injuries which were possible by the weapons viz. sticks used by the accused in assaulting complainant. The weapons/sticks were recovered. It is submitted that the evidence of the complainant was supported by P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 which was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. It is submitted that P.W. 9 and 10 has proved the injuries sustained by P.W. 1. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to show that the accused were involved in commission of crime. The trial Court has overlooked the cogent evidence, which could not be discarded in any manner by the defence in its cross-examination and thereby the trial Court has committed an error. 9. I have perused the entire evidence on record. The prosecution has examined about 10 witnesses. P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 6, and P.W. 8 have not supported the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. They were cross-examined by the prosecution, however, no incriminating circumstances could be elicited from their evidence. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution has not examined the investigating officer. 10. The trial Court after analysing the evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses have observed that their evidence suffers from serious infirmities. There are contractions and omissions in their evidence. There are infirmities with regard to nature and number of injuries sustained by the complainant. The evidence of the purported eye-witnesses is contradictory to each other. The trial Court, has therefore, assigned cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. There are infirmities with regard to nature and number of injuries sustained by the complainant. The evidence of the purported eye-witnesses is contradictory to each other. The trial Court, has therefore, assigned cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. I have perused the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses and I do not find any reason to interfere in the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court which has resulted in acquittal of the accused. 11. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have acted in furtherance of common object and assaulted the complainant. The incident had occurred on 10th July, 1995. P.W. 1 was Sarpanch of village. He had deposed about the assault and has also referred to the overt act attributed to the assailants. The complainant was forced to resign as Sarpanch of the village but he did not adhere to the demand of the accused. On the day of incident, PW. 1 met uncle of accused no. 1 and he was told that he should inform his nephew to pay Rs. 7000/- to him, which were borrowed by him. Accused nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 assaulted him by sticks and accused nos. 5 and 6 assaulted by kicks. P.W. 1 in his cross examination stated that he is unable to state number of blows given by each accused with sticks. There was omission in his evidence with regards to fact that Manohar Raut lay on him and rescued him. He could not say if any person had gathered. P.W. 2 has stated that her relations with the Sarpanch are cordial. She stated that accused nos. 1, 4 and 5 Balu Sandipan, Dinkar and Maruti came with sticks and assaulted P.W. 1. Shivaji Patil lay on P.W. 1. Shivaji Patil, Manu and the witness intervened. P.W. 2 Shiva Patil and others took P.W. 1 to Sangola. The version that Raosaheb, Balu Dinker had come with sticks was not mentioned in statement before police. His deposition that Shiva lay on P.W. 1 was also not reflected in statement before police. The fact that he had intervened and P.W. 1 got injuries to his right hand and thigh is not mentioned in his statement. She did not see how many people had gathered. His deposition that Shiva lay on P.W. 1 was also not reflected in statement before police. The fact that he had intervened and P.W. 1 got injuries to his right hand and thigh is not mentioned in his statement. She did not see how many people had gathered. P.W. 3 was alleged eye-witness to incident who lay on P.W. 1 as stated by P.W. 1. he stated that accused were abusing complainant and police patil took P.W. 1 to hospital. He was silent about assault by accused. He was declared hostile. P.W. 4 is the police patil. He was declared hostile. According to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 he was present at the time of incident. P.W. 5 present at the time of incident. P.W. 5 has deposed that accused were assaulting P.W. 1 with sticks. He did not mention names of accused. His statement before the police do not refer to names of accused nos. 3, 4 and 6. P.W. 6 is the pancha for spot panchanama. He was declared hostile. P.W. 7 is the eye-witness. He didn't support prosecution. P.W. 8 is the pancha for recovery of sticks. He was hostile. Panchanama of recovery was exhibited as Exhibit-65. Three sticks were recovered allegedly at the instance of accused no. 5. P.W. 9 deposed that he examined P.W. 1 and noted five injuries. The first two injuries were possible by stick and other injuries are possible by fall in scuffle. In the cross examination, he stated that third and fourth injuries are possible if a person fells on his back by himself. The fifth injury is possible by self infliction. The first two injuries are also possible by self infliction. Medical Certificate Exhibit-67 refers to five injuries in the nature of contusion. P.W. 1 was referred civil hospital for further management. P.W. 10 has stated that he examined P.W. 1 and noticed two contusions. He was examined and on the same day discharged. He was treated as out door patient. The contusion last upto 14 days. The certificate Exhibit-80 dies not mention dimension of defused contusion. Certificate must mention cause, age and nature of injury. Exhibit-80 is silent in that regard. The notes of examination are also silent about nature, cause, age of injury. Thus, certificate issued by P.W. 9 refers to five injuries and the certificate of P.W. 10 Exhibit-80 refers to two injuries. The certificate Exhibit-80 dies not mention dimension of defused contusion. Certificate must mention cause, age and nature of injury. Exhibit-80 is silent in that regard. The notes of examination are also silent about nature, cause, age of injury. Thus, certificate issued by P.W. 9 refers to five injuries and the certificate of P.W. 10 Exhibit-80 refers to two injuries. The trial Court, thus, observed that the two medical certificate are not in consonance with each other. P.W. 9 has admitted that the injuries are possible by fall and self infliction. It is also admitted that there is no mention of mark of lash with stick in respect of injury nos. 1, 2 and 4. P.W. 10 has also admitted that the contingent last upto 14 days which also creates doubt since the earlier Medical Certificate which is at Exhibit 67 refers to 5 injuries. It is also pertinent to note that there are omissions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses. The trial Court has taken into consideration the infirmities in evidence. The motive attributed is that P.W. 1 refused to resign from post of "Sarpanch". None of the accused were members of Gram Panchayat. Recovery of articles is not proved by prosecution. The evidence suffers from omissions and contradictions. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The investigating officer has not been examined by the prosecution. The trial Court has scrutinized the evidence of these witnesses and has assigned reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case. 12. Considering the nature of evidence and the serious infirmities in the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. There is no reason to disturb the judgment and order of acquittal delivered by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, nature of evidence, the reasons assigned by the trial Court, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the Appeal preferred by the State is required to be dismissed. 13. Hence, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2003 stands dismissed; (ii) No order as to costs.