JUDGMENT : MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J. The State is in appeal, questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Bidar, in S.C.No.120/2014, whereby the respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. We have heard the learned Additional SPP appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2. Perused the evidence and material on record. 3. The prosecution has alleged that, on 03.01.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., near tea-stall of one Mukesh Kambar at Bagdal village, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with deceased – Anil Kumar and assaulted him on his chest and abdomen with hands and kicked him, on account of which he sustained fatal injuries and died in the hospital on 04.01.2014 at 03.15 a.m. 4. A written complaint was lodged by PW.1, brother of the deceased – Anil Kumar, as per Ex.P1 at Bagdal Police Station. PW.18 – P.S.I., based on the said complaint, registered a case against accused Nos.1 and 2 and prepared the FIR – Ex.P1 and forwarded it to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 5. PW.21 – C.P.I., Rural Circle Bidar, took over the investigation and conducted inquest panchanama as per Ex.P4 and also spot mahazar as per Ex.P2. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination by the Doctor – PW.19. The articles collected during the investigation were sent for FSL examination and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 6. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 22 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 to 5. 8. The defence of the accused was one of total denial, however, they did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf. 9. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment held that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and acquitted them of the charged offence. 10. 8. The defence of the accused was one of total denial, however, they did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf. 9. The learned Sessions Judge vide impugned judgment held that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused and acquitted them of the charged offence. 10. The learned Additional SPP has contended that, the prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to establish the charges leveled against the accused, by examining the eye-witnesses and therefore, the trial Court was not justified in recording an order of acquittal. He contended that PWs.1, 7 to 9, 12 to 14 have deposed having seen both the accused, not only quarrelling with the deceased, but also assaulting him. The victim was shifted to the hospital immediately after the incident, but he died in the hospital, while undergoing treatment. He has therefore contended that, even if there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit murder, there is sufficient material to show that the accused had a knowledge that the injuries caused to the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause his death. He further contended that, the injuries noticed in the post-mortem report clearly shows that there was nexus between the incident and the death of the deceased and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents / accused Nos.1 and 2 has contended that, the prosecution has suppressed the material facts and the genesis of the incident. He contended that the deceased was admitted to the hospital with a history of chest pain and nowhere it is stated that there was any such incident of assault, which resulted in deceased sustaining injuries. The cause of death is on account of head injury, whereas the witnesses have not stated that the accused have assaulted the deceased on his head. He further contended that the deceased had consumed alcohol, which is evident from the record and therefore, he falling down under the influence of alcohol and sustaining injuries to his head noticed in the post-mortem report is not ruled out. He contended that the accused are falsely implicated and the trial Court having appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective, has acquitted the accused after giving cogent and valid reasons. He contended that the accused are falsely implicated and the trial Court having appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the right perspective, has acquitted the accused after giving cogent and valid reasons. He submitted that this being an appeal preferred against the judgment of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is further strengthened and therefore, sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.01.2014 at about 7:30 p.m., near the tea-stall of one Mukesh Kambar at Bagdal village, the accused picked up quarrel with deceased Anil Kumar, pushed him to the ground and assaulted with hands and kicked with legs, due to which he suffered fatal head injuries and later died in the hospital while undergoing treatment, on 04.01.2014 at 03:15 a.m. 13. The complaint as per Ex.P1 is lodged by the brother of the deceased, who is examined as PW.1. In Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated that on 03.01.2014, his deceased brother had been to the funeral ceremony of one of their relative by name Sundramma and after returning home, he took bath and went to a hotel situated near Hanuman Mandir, at about 7:30 p.m., and he followed him. When he reached the hotel, he saw both accused Nos.1 and 2 abusing and fisting the deceased on his chest and assaulting him. His brother fell down and sustained injuries near his left eye and back of his head, at that time, he along with Gundappa (PW.8), Mallappa (PW.9) and Hanumanth (PW.7) pacified the quarrel and shifted his brother in an auto to CHC Mannaekhelli Government Hospital for treatment, as he was complaining of chest pain. The doctor present there advised them to take him to District Hospital, Bidar and therefore, they shifted him to the said Hospital. However, he died at about 03.15 a.m., on 04.01.2014. 14. According to prosecution, PWs.1, 7 to 9, 12 to 14 are the eye-witnesses, who were present at the spot and witnessed the incident. 15. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses, it is relevant to see as to what was the information furnished to the Hospital at the time of admission of the victim and also the cause of death. 16. As per PM report – Ex.P.12 issued by PW.19, death was on account of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. 17. 15. Before discussing the evidence of the witnesses, it is relevant to see as to what was the information furnished to the Hospital at the time of admission of the victim and also the cause of death. 16. As per PM report – Ex.P.12 issued by PW.19, death was on account of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. 17. The following injuries are noticed :- I. Lacerated injury measuring ½ inch x ¼ inch on left eyebrow, perhaps on the medial aspect. II. Contused abrasion measuring ½ inch x ¼ inch on the occipital region. III. Lacerated injuries measuring ½ inch x ¼ inch on left elbow joint. 18. PW.19 has stated that the above injuries were ante mortem in nature. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the injuries could be caused on account of accidental fall on the hard surface from moving motorcycle. Further, normal course of consumption of alcohol leads to high B.P. that would lead to heart-attack, but in the instant case, no such symptoms were found. He has stated that if a person is pushed on the ground, such injuries could be caused. 19. Contention of learned counsel for the respondents was that the deceased had consumed alcohol at the time of incident and he fell down on the ground and sustained head injury, which might have led to his death. Attention of the Court was drawn to Ex.P.13 i.e., the case- sheet pertaining to the District Hospital, Bidar. A perusal of Ex.P.13 goes to show that the deceased had consumed alcohol at around 02.00 p.m. Further, PW.20 who treated him at BRIMS, at Bidar, in his cross-examination has stated that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and he had noticed alcoholic smell from his mouth. 20. From the above evidence on record, it can be safely gathered that the deceased sustained certain external injuries and the cause of death was on account of head injury sustained by him. Further, he was under the influence of alcohol, when he was examined by the Doctor – PW.20. 21. The incident took place at about 7.30 p.m., on 03.01.2014. According to prosecution, immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Mannaekhelli Government Hospital, in an auto-rickshaw. Further, he was under the influence of alcohol, when he was examined by the Doctor – PW.20. 21. The incident took place at about 7.30 p.m., on 03.01.2014. According to prosecution, immediately after the incident, the deceased was shifted to Mannaekhelli Government Hospital, in an auto-rickshaw. PW.10, auto- rickshaw driver has deposed that at about 12.30 a.m., as per the request of PW.1, he took Anil Kumar i.e., the deceased to CHC Mannaekhelli, where treatment was provided to him and then he was taken to Government Hospital, Bidar in an ambulance. 22. The prosecution has not placed any records pertaining to Mannaekhelli Hospital to show as to what was the earliest information given to the Doctor in the said Hospital, when the victim was taken to the said hospital. In a case of this nature, the Hospital Authorities are bound to inform the Police when any person is brought to the Hospital with a history of assault and to send MLC intimation. No such intimation was sent. Further, a perusal of Ex.P.13 i.e., the case-sheet pertaining to District Hospital, Bidar, shows, at 01.56 a.m. on 04.01.2014, the victim was admitted in the said Hospital, however, there is no mention of any history furnished to the said Hospital stating that the deceased sustained injuries on account of the assault. On the other hand, history furnished was of chest pain. Even no MLC intimation was sent from the said Hospital to the jurisdictional Police. Admittedly, a written complaint was lodged at about 09.30 a.m., on 04.01.2014, obviously, after Anil Kumar died in the hospital at about 03.15 a.m. 23. As per Ex.P.1, it is PW.1 along with PWs.7, 8 and 9 shifted the victim to the hospital. If there was any incident as alleged by the prosecution had taken place, wherein the accused had assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries as stated by the witnesses, nothing prevented them to inform the hospital Authority while furnishing history, at the time of admission of the victim. Hence, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court as to the genesis of the incident as projected by the prosecution and in this background, it is necessary to examine the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 24. Hence, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court as to the genesis of the incident as projected by the prosecution and in this background, it is necessary to examine the evidence of the eye-witnesses. 24. PW.1 has deposed that both accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with his brother Anil Kumar, abused him in filthy language as to why he obstructed a lorry loaded with sugarcane and accused No.2 caught hold his shirt collar and accused No.1 fisted with hands on his chest, stomach and left side of the eyebrow, on account of which his brother fell on the ground and both the accused sat on his body and assaulted him with hands. The other eye-witnesses namely PWs.7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 have given different versions with regard to the incident. PW.7 has stated that he saw the quarrel between accused and deceased and they were pushing each other. He along with CWs.14 and 15 intervened and pacified the quarrel. He has stated that he has not witnessed deceased falling on the ground and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting him. 25. Similar is the evidence of PWs.8 and 9. They have also stated that they saw accused Nos.1, 2 and deceased quarrelling and pushing each other and not witnessed accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting the deceased. 26. PW.12 has stated that the accused and deceased were pushing and assaulting each other with hands, on account of which Anil Kumar fell on the ground and he noticed injuries on his eyebrow and head. He has also not stated that after the deceased fell down, accused have assaulted him. 27. PW.13 has also stated that he saw the accused and deceased quarrelling and pushing each other. He has specifically stated that he has not witnessed the deceased falling on the ground or accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulting him with hands. 28. According to PW.14, he saw the deceased and accused Nos.1 and 2 quarrelling and pushing each other, on account of which the deceased fell on the ground and accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him with hands on his chest, left side of the eyebrow and he sustained injuries on the head. After the deceased fell on the ground, accused Nos.1 and 2 kicked the deceased with their legs. After the deceased fell on the ground, accused Nos.1 and 2 kicked the deceased with their legs. The said evidence of PW.14 is totally contrary to the evidence of other eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution. 29. It is relevant to see that, when the name of CWs.8, 9 and 10 were specifically mentioned in Ex.P1, the name of PW.14 is missing. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he was working as a driver and he owned a Maxi cab and deceased was working as a conductor in the said Maxi cab for about 11 years and since he was a servant, he had good relationship with him. 30. In view of the evidence of PWs.7, 8, 9, 12 and 13, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.14 that they saw the accused kicking the deceased with their legs and assaulting him with the hands on his chest, left side of his eyebrow etc., is hard to believe. All the witnesses, according to prosecution were present at the spot when the incident took place. When PWs.7 to 9, 12 and 13 have not specifically stated that the accused have assaulted the deceased with hands and kicked him when he fell down and caused injuries to his eyebrow and head, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.14 that, they saw the accused assaulting the deceased on his chest etc., and caused injuries to his left eye and head, is difficult to accept. 31. From the evidence of PW.20, it is crystal clear that the deceased had consumed alcohol. From the evidence and material on record, it can be seen that there was a quarrel between the accused as well as the deceased and in the said quarrel they pushed each other. Probably the deceased who had consumed alcohol, fell down and sustained injuries, as noticed in the post- mortem report. It cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused or they had knowledge that by pushing, the deceased would sustain such injuries which are noticed in the post-mortem report, resulting in his death. 32. Probably the deceased who had consumed alcohol, fell down and sustained injuries, as noticed in the post- mortem report. It cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the accused or they had knowledge that by pushing, the deceased would sustain such injuries which are noticed in the post-mortem report, resulting in his death. 32. The learned Sessions Judge having appreciated the evidence and material on record has come to the conclusion that there could be exchange of words between the accused and deceased, that led to pushing each other and therefore, no intention on the part of the accused could be gathered to hold that they had an intention to commit the murder and even otherwise, the accused could not be attributable of voluntarily causing injury to the deceased. 33. We find that the reasons assigned by the trial Court are not illegal or perverse, so as to reverse the said findings. No interference is called for in the appeal. Hence, the following : ORDER The appeal is dismissed.