JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under the provisions of Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises from the judgment and order dated 10th January 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2001, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 504, 302, 307, 323, 324, 506(2) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 4th February 2001, the respondents-accused nos. 1 to 6 formed an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit the offence for getting share in the property and they were armed with sticks, bow and arrows, iron pipes, etc. As per the case of the prosecution and as per the charge Exh.2, the accused Ratilal gave a stick blow on the head of the deceased Maneklal, who is the bother of the complainant (PW-1), the accused Dajibhai aimed an arrow at Maneklal, which struck on the wrist of deceased, the accused Gulabbhai Dajibhai gave a blow with iron pipe on the right hand of the deceased, the accused Amarsinh Dajibhai gave stick blows on the head of the deceased. It is further alleged that Ramilaben, her mother and her elder sister-in-law Surajben had intervened. The accused Keshamben gave stick blows on the back of Revaben, the accused Dajibhai Khatubhai aimed an arrow at Ramilaben, which struck on her left hand and the accused Ratilal also inflicted stick blows on her left hand. It is further alleged that at that point of time the complainant came to the scene of offence and on account of fear, he hid himself behind the house and noticed the incident. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away from the place of the incident after administering threat to them. Accordingly, PW-1 registered the complaint on 5th January 2001 with the Morva Police Station. 3. After the investigation, the accused persons were charged and accordingly they were tried for the offences for which they were charged. The trial court, after examining 15 witnesses and also documentary evidence, acquitted the respondents-accused. 4. Accordingly, PW-1 registered the complaint on 5th January 2001 with the Morva Police Station. 3. After the investigation, the accused persons were charged and accordingly they were tried for the offences for which they were charged. The trial court, after examining 15 witnesses and also documentary evidence, acquitted the respondents-accused. 4. Learned APP, while assailing the judgment and order of the trial court acquitting the respondents-accused, has submitted that the trial court has ignored the evidence of the most important witness, i.e. the complainant - Devidas Zavrabhai, who is examined below Exh.11. The evidence of PW-13/Revaben Parvatbhai (Exh.42) and PW-10/Ramilaben Devidas (Exh.35) reveals the complicity of the accused in the offence. Learned APP has submitted that the two injured witnesses PW-10 and PW-13 have supported the case of the prosecution and have narrated the incident as if it had happened, and once the presence is accepted, the evidence clearly establishes that the accused were armed with various weapons and have brutally assaulted the deceased. Learned APP has also referred to the postmortem report (Exh.28) and has submitted that the injuries which were suffered by the deceased reconciled with the evidence of the eyewitnesses who are also the injured witnesses. While referring to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, learned APP has submitted that his evidence reveals that appropriate panchnama was undertaken and the weapons were recovered and were sent to the FSL, which also proves that the incident had occurred. Learned APP has also referred to the scene of offence panchnama (Exh.17). In support of his submission, he has submitted that the place of incident reveals blood stains and hence, it is established that the incident had occurred. While referring to the findings of the trial court, learned APP has submitted that the trial court has believed the medical evidence which reveals that the injured eye-witnesses PW-13 and PW-10 have referred to the names of the accused persons and it is specifically stated that they were assaulted by the accused persons, namely, Dajibhai, Gulabbhai, Mangalsinh, Ratilal, Keshamben and Amarsinh. He, thus, submitted that despite the aforesaid evidence, the trial court has fell in error in acquitting the accused. Hence, it is urged by him that the judgment and order acquitting the accused requires to be quashed and set-aside. 5. We have heard learned APP at length and have also examined the evidence threadbare. He, thus, submitted that despite the aforesaid evidence, the trial court has fell in error in acquitting the accused. Hence, it is urged by him that the judgment and order acquitting the accused requires to be quashed and set-aside. 5. We have heard learned APP at length and have also examined the evidence threadbare. As per the charge (Exh.2), the case of the prosecution as mentioned herein above is that all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and inflicted various blows with arrows, iron pipes and stick on the deceased as well as the injured witnesses on 4th February 2001. The complainant, who is examined as PW-1 below Exh.11, accordingly lodged the complaint on 5th February 2001 (Exh.12). A perusal of his evidence reveals that he has seen the incident from behind a wall through a crack which was 2 fingers wide in the night hours at around 8:00 p.m. The evidence reveals that he has admitted in his cross-examination that there was a winter season and at around 7:00 p.m. it was dark and there was no light. The Investigating Officer (PW-14), who is examined at Exh.44, has also admitted in his evidence that there was no light. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had also inflicted injuries on the injured witnesses as well as the deceased by bow & arrows. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer, he has stated that he had collected 5 arrows, however, except one arrow, he did not send the other arrows to the FSL. Reading the evidence of the complainant in juxtaposition the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it is manifest that it is highly improbable that the complainant has seen the incident through a crack in the wall and that too in the dark outside his house in a street as there was no light. The trial court has accordingly considered his evidence and has recorded a finding that it is highly improbable that the eye-witness has seen the incident, that too, assigning role to each of the accused persons with the weapons through which they inflicted injuries on the deceased. It is also noticed by the trial court and the evidence of the witness also reveals that subsequently after registering the present complaint, the complainant had again registered another complaint involving eighteen accused, for which no explanation has been tendered by him. It is also noticed by the trial court and the evidence of the witness also reveals that subsequently after registering the present complaint, the complainant had again registered another complaint involving eighteen accused, for which no explanation has been tendered by him. His evidence does not, in any manner, reveals or establishes him as a reliable witness and is tainted with major contradictions and omissions. Similarly, the injured witness – Ramilaben Devidas (PW-10), who is examined at Exh.35, has narrated the incident. However, the same suffers from major contradictions. She has admitted that she had not seen the accused when they had arrived and she is not aware when they had entered in the house. The defence has been able to establish major contradictions and omissions as well as improvements in her evidence. The same is the position with the testimony of the injured witness - Revaben Parvatbhai (PW-13), who is examined at Exh.42. Though the history, which is recorded by Dr.Rameshchandra (PW-15), who is examined at Exh.50, reveals the name of the accused, but the same is recorded on 6th February 2001, i.e. after two days of the incident and after the registration of the complaint. It is well settled legal precedent that the conviction for a serious offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be recorded merely on the recording of the history by the doctor unless the same is corroborated by further evidence. The entire case of the prosecution is premised on the evidence of these three witnesses. The panchnama is not proved as the panchas have turned hostile. There is contradiction with regard to infliction of wounds or injuries with the arrows in the testimony of the injured witnesses as well as the complainant. The manner in which the incident has been narrated by these three witnesses also does not reconcile with each other. The medical history of PW-13/Revaben Parvatbhai (Exh.42) naming the accused does not find place in her police statement, which is recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also interesting to note that the wife of the deceased, namely, Surajben, though was present at the time of the incident and would have been a vital witness, is not examined by the prosecution. It is also interesting to note that the wife of the deceased, namely, Surajben, though was present at the time of the incident and would have been a vital witness, is not examined by the prosecution. Similarly, the father of the deceased, namely, Zavrabhai, who was also present at the time of the incident, is also not examined as a witness. All the three witnesses are inconsistent in narrating the manner in which the incident has occurred. From the evidence, it is revealed that the witnesses have tried to attribute both, stick and bow & arrow, in the hands of one of the accused Dajibhai. However, the case of the prosecution is not that he was armed with stick. Similarly, it is noticed that the witness - Revaben Parvatbhai (PW-13), though has admitted that she has seen the incident and also the accused, however, in the court, while identifying them, she committed major mistakes/errors and, instead of two chances given to her, she was unable to identify the accused Gulabbhai and instead she named him as Amarsinh. She has identified the accused Amarsinh as Mangalsinh and Gulabsinh as Ratilal. Thus, her evidence before the trial court does not, in any manner, inspire confidence and it cannot be said that she has actually seen the accused in the night hours when the incident had occurred. None of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses qualifies as of pristine quality and the conviction for a serious offence like murder cannot be premised on an evidence which is doubtful in nature. 6. We have threadbare perused the findings of the trial court and we do not find that the same is tainted with any illegality or perversity. Hence, we are not inclined to reverse the acquittal of the respondents-accused. 7. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court.