JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.7.2017, in Criminal Case No.1128/2014, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kumta, the complainant State has preferred this appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused illegally entered into the house of the complainant’s father bearing property No.75A, situated at Kagal, Hubbanageri, at about 1.00 p.m. on 4.6.2014 and as there was a dispute between them, and also old hatredness, the accused abused the complainant’s father in a filthy language and hit him on his right arm with a wooden log resulting in fracture of a bone and he also gave life threat to the complainant’s father. Based on the said allegations, after investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the accused alleging commission of offences under sections 326, 448, 504, 506 of IPC. 4. The prosecution to prove its case examined six witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P8(a). M.O.1 also has been marked. The accused has not let in any evidence nor got marked any documents. After recording the evidence, 313 statement has been recorded. Based on the evidence let in, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. It is contended that the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there are material contradictions in the deposition of PW1 – complainant and PW3 – injured witness. It is contended that the said contradictions are minor in nature and cannot be considered such a great contradiction that the accused needs to be acquitted on the said ground. It is further contended that, all the eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is also contended that the evidence of PW3 – injured witness has special status in law and reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baleshwar Mahto and Another Vs. State of Bihar and Another Reported in (2017) 3 SCC 15226 and also in the case of Suresh Sitaram Surve Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2003 SC 344 . State of Bihar and Another Reported in (2017) 3 SCC 15226 and also in the case of Suresh Sitaram Surve Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2003 SC 344 . On the said ground, the prosecution has sought for setting aside the judgment passed by the trial Court and to convict the accused for the offences charged. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has justified the judgment passed by the trial Court and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. PW1 is the son of PW3 – injured witness. The allegation against the accused is that, the accused illegally entered the house of PW3, abused him in filthy language and assaulted on his right arm from a wooden log, which resulted in fracture, and that he threatened the victim. 8. Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by PW1. In the said complaint, it is stated that the accused on 04.06.2014 at about 1.00 pm, when PW1 was working in the backside of his house, the accused came to their house and started quarreling with PW3. The accused took up a wooden log and tried to hit PW3. At that time, PW3 got scared and went inside the house. At that time, the accused illegally entered into their house and caught hold of PW3 and hit on his right arm from the wooden log. Immediately PW1 went inside the house and prevented further assault on PW3. Then the accused abused PW3 and PW1 in filthy language and threatened them and threw the wooden log there itself and went towards his house. Subsequently, PW3 was taken to the doctor, where it was diagnosed that he had sustained fracture. In his deposition, PW1 has stated that he was working in the backyard of his house at about 1.00 pm on 04.06.2014. The accused came to their house and started abusing PWs. 1 and 3 in filthy language and quarreled with PW3. PW3 to avoid the quarrel went inside the house. At that time, the accused illegally entered into the house and hit PW3 on his right arm by the wooden log. After hearing the noise inside the house, PW1 went into the house and at that time, the accused abused both PWs. 1 and 3 and threatened them and went out. PW3 to avoid the quarrel went inside the house. At that time, the accused illegally entered into the house and hit PW3 on his right arm by the wooden log. After hearing the noise inside the house, PW1 went into the house and at that time, the accused abused both PWs. 1 and 3 and threatened them and went out. Thereafter, PW3 was taken to the Government Hospital at Kumta, where he was diagnosed with fracture and thereafter PW3 was taken to the doctor by name Dr. Shashank and thereafter PW1 went and gave complaint. 9. PW2 is the panch witness, who has spoken about the spot panchanama being drawn. Ex.P2 is the panchanama, which shows the assault happened inside the house, as stated by PW1 in the complaint as well as in his deposition. 10. PW3 is the injured witness, who has stated that at about 1.00 pm on 04.06.2014, the accused entered their house by abusing him. At that time, PW3 was standing near the compound of the house. The accused took the wooden log which was lying there, caught hold of PW3 and hit on his right hand. PW3 after assault sat there itself. PW1, who was working in the backyard heard the shouting of PW3 and came to the spot. The entire incident has been witnessed by the wife of PW3. Thereafter he has gone to the doctor and was diagnosed with the fracture and has taken the necessary treatment. 11. What needs to be noticed in the deposition of PWs. 1 and PW3 is that, PW1 states the assault of PW3 happened inside the house, whereas PW3 states the assault happened in the compound of the house. This is a material contradiction. 12. PW4 is the doctor who has treated PW3. He has stated that there was no external injuries and has also opined that, when a person is assaulted by a wooden log like M.O.1, normally there will be external injuries. He has also stated that it is possible for a person like PW3 to sustain fracture of the nature that he has sustained physically by simply falling down. 13. It is also noticed that, though PW3 has stated that his wife is the eyewitness to the entire incident, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, she has not been examined. PW1 is not an eyewitness to the assault. 13. It is also noticed that, though PW3 has stated that his wife is the eyewitness to the entire incident, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, she has not been examined. PW1 is not an eyewitness to the assault. However, he has stated that immediately after the assault he rushed to the spot and the assault has taken place inside the house. The spot mahazer also shows the same. 14. PW5 is the head constable who has registered the case. PW6 is the Investigating Officer, who has done the investigation and filed the charge sheet. They are not the eyewitnesses. 15. It is also noticed that there are minor contradictions between the statements of PW4 – doctor and that of PWs. 1 and 3 as to the time of the incident. The prosecution has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Baleshwar’s case (supra). Para 12 of the said judgment reads as under : “12. ……….. When the eye-witness is also an injured person, due credence to his version needs to be accorded. On this aspect, we may refer to the following observations in Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (SCC pp. 271-72, paras 28-30) "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [ (1973) 3 SCC 881 ], Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. [ (1975) 3 SCC 311 ], Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, 1984 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 412], Appabhai v. State of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241], Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC], Bhag Singh, [(1997) 7 SCC 712], Mohar v. State of U.P., [2002 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 182], Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [ (2008) 8 SCC 270 ], Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [ (2009) 10 SCC 477 ], Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. [ (2009) 12 SCC 546 ] and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 430]. 29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 253:, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) "28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1995 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 127, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, 2005 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 276, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, 2005 (1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 276, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [ (2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214]). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein." They have also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Sitaram Surve’s case (supra) Para 6 of the said judgment reads as follows : “6. As rightly observed by the High Court, the trial court was not justified in discarding the evidence of injured eye witnesses (excepting PW 7) in toto on the ground of inimical disposition towards the accused or the improbability of narrating the details of actual attack. True, their evidence has to be scrutinized with caution taking into account the factum of previous enmity and the tendency to exaggerate and to implicate as many as possible. But on a perusal of the evidence tested in the light of the broad probabilities, the High Court was justified in reaching the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and they could not have concocted the case against the accused without any basis. But on a perusal of the evidence tested in the light of the broad probabilities, the High Court was justified in reaching the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and they could not have concocted the case against the accused without any basis. The fact that the FIR was lodged almost immediately after the occurrence naming the appellant as the main assailant lends positive assurance to the credibility of the prosecution case as unfolded by the eye witnesses most of whom were injured. Both the trial court and the High Court found that there was sufficient light emitted by the tubelight in front of the house to identify the accused who were known persons. The fact that the incident occurred outside and inside the house cannot be doubted as there was blood both at the steps where the dead body lay and inside the house and weapons stained with human blood were found lying in the adjoining narrow lane and the injuries were found on almost all the inmates of the house. It is highly unlikely that within a short time of the occurrence the prosecution party could have come forward with a false version implicating the persons who were not at all scene, while leaving out real culprits. The eye witnesses' account of the attack by the appellant is quite consistent. Though certain doubts are sought to be created as to the genesis of the incident ad the manner of attack by taking us through the topography of the scene of offence, we are not at all convinced that the prosecution case is belied on account of such factors. The argument that the injuries on the appellant were not explained by the prosecution and therefore the prosecution case of the appellant being an aggressor is open to doubt has no substance at all. In the course of examination of PW 5 under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant while denying his presence in the course of the incident had stated that while returning home from his vegetable shop, he was assaulted by a crowd in a passage but he could not recognize them on account of darkness. Thus, he does not attribute the injury to the deceased or the prosecution party nor does he suggest that he acted in self-defence. Thus, he does not attribute the injury to the deceased or the prosecution party nor does he suggest that he acted in self-defence. While on this aspect, the High Court also observed that the possibility of the accused being injured when the deceased or the prosecution witnesses tried to resist the attack cannot be ruled out. Considering the facts and evidence on record, we affirm the finding of the High Court that the appellant in the company of others did attack the deceased with a dangerous weapon, namely, Gupti and the prosecution case in this regard cannot be thrown out on the tenuous grounds made out by the trial court.” 16. Relying upon the said judgments, the prosecution has canvassed that, though there are contradictions as to the deposition of PWs. 1 and 3 as to the place of incident, the same needs to be treated as minor contradiction and the accused needs to be held guilty of the offences alleged. They have also contended that, when there is contradiction between an eyewitness and doctor, reliance needs to be placed upon the deposition of the eyewitness and on this ground also the contractions in between the deposition of PWs.1 and 3 needs to be overlooked and accused needs to be punished. It is true that PW4 will have recorded the incident that the injury happened based on the statement of the victim or the police. He is not an eyewitness to the incident. To consider whether the incident happened or not, the statements of eyewitnesses needs to be considered and in the process, contradictions as to the time of incident as per the evidence of PW4 can be overlooked. In the instant case, the deposition of PW4 – doctor is relevant only to the extent of proving the injuries suffered by PW3 and as to how it has happened. PW4 has deposed that PW3 has sustained fracture to his right arm. However, as to cause of injury, he has opined it might have happened due to the wooden log or even otherwise, he has further stated that there are possibilities of PW3 sustaining external injuries on the hand, if he were to be assaulted by M.O.1 as alleged and in the instant case he has not noticed any such injuries. 17. However, as to cause of injury, he has opined it might have happened due to the wooden log or even otherwise, he has further stated that there are possibilities of PW3 sustaining external injuries on the hand, if he were to be assaulted by M.O.1 as alleged and in the instant case he has not noticed any such injuries. 17. While depicting the scene of crime, there is a possibility that there can be minor contradictions in the deposition of eyewitnesses. However, to determine whether such contradictions are minor or major, which goes to the root of the matter depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, PW1 has stated that the assault happened inside the house, whereas PW3 has stated the assault happened in the compound. 18. Under the given facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, this is a major contradiction. It is true that the deposition of an injured witness has to be given sufficient weightage, but that also depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 in para 42 has held as under : “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 20. In the instant case also two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record. It can be concluded that in all probability there was assault on PW3 by accused and while giving evidence, taking into consideration that it was being given after lapse of time and due to lapse of memory, there might have been contradictions as to the actual place of the incident as deposed by PWs. 1 and 3. The other view possible is that it is a major contradiction, which goes to the root of the matter and thereby the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The trial Court having accepted the second view, has given the benefit of doubt to the accused. Based on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned decision, we do not find it as a fit case to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court. In our opinion, the trial Court based on the evidence has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt because of the contradictions and by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused has acquitted him. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.