ORDER : N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J. [1] This appeal is preferred by the State challenging the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused, who was charged with committing offence under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. [2] Hirabhai Devabhai Meena, the complainant, filed a complaint dated 18.09.2008, in which he stated that he was doing centering work along with Ramesh Hurmabhai Meena and Chhababhai Amrabhai Meena and Tulshibhai would often tell them that he was in need of centering workers and if they wanted to do the work of centering, they should accompany him. Accordingly, on 11.09.2008, all four of them went to the site of Vaibhav Homes in Adalaj village and stayed together in Tulshibhai's room, doing centering work every day from 8:00 in the morning till 6:00 in the evening. [2.1] He stated that all four of them took turns cooking, and on 15.09.2008, when Tulshibhai was kneading dough for making rotis and Ramesh was cooking vegetables, Jivabhai Amrabhai, i.e. the accused, had gone outside to take bath. At around 11 p.m., he came into the room and happened to walk over the dough that was being kneaded by Tulshibhai, as a result, Tulshibhai got into an argument with him, and Jivabhai also got agitated, and both of them started fighting. In the course of this fight, Jivabhai has started beating Tulshibhai, and they intervened and separated the two. It was stated that Jivabhai dragged Tulshibhai out of the room and beat him with a stick, and had actually sat on Tulshibhai. In view of this, he and Rameshbhai had intervened and tried to get Jivabhai off Tulshibhai and free him. However, Jivabhai had in fact pushed the complainant during the fight, which also resulted in him suffering injuries under his left eye and on his left shoulder. Ultimately, they intervened and beat Tulshibhai and persuaded Jivabhai and sent him towards the road. At that time, Tulshibhai was lying outside, but he later got up and went to his room. It was stated that at that time, Malibhai, who was also staying in the next room, also came out, scolded everyone and went back to his room to sleep. At that time, Tulshibhai was lying outside, but he later got up and went to his room. It was stated that at that time, Malibhai, who was also staying in the next room, also came out, scolded everyone and went back to his room to sleep. [2.2] The complainant also stated that he had informed the contractor, Rajubhai, over the telephone about the injuries suffered by him and he had came to the site at about 12.30 a.m. and took him to Chandkheda Orthopedic Hospital, where he was treated, stitches were put on his left cheek, and an X-ray was also taken. It was stated that thereafter the contractor, Rajubhai dropped him back at the site, and instead of going to Tulshibhai’s room, he had gone and slept on the roof. On the following day, i.e. on the morning of 16.09.2008, both Jiva Amara and Ramesh Hurma Meena took twenty rupees from him and had left, saying that they wanted to go to Gandhinagar. He stated that since he was badly hurt on the hand, he also did not go to work, and Tulshibhai also did not go to work on the following day and they ate at a hotel and slept on the roof. [2.3] It was stated that on 17.09.2008, at around 7:00 am, he had gone to drink tea and water, where he met Rajubhai and they in turn decided to get tea and biscuits for Tulshibhai, and accordingly, they had gone to the room of tea and biscuits, where Tulshibhai was sitting, and gave him the tea and biscuits. It was stated that at that time, all of a sudden, Tulshibhai vomited, fell down, and passed away. Rajubhai thereafter went to procure a rickshaw, and they thereafter decided to take him to the village in a jeep. Accordingly, they also brought a jeep and placed Tulshibhai’s dead body into the jeep. [2.4] They stated that they left the Adalaj site at 9.30 in the morning and reached Ashish Hotel, which was ahead of Shamlaji at 1.30 p.m. However, the jeep driver dropped Tulshibhai’s dead body on the side of the road and refused to take them to Thththar village. [2.4] They stated that they left the Adalaj site at 9.30 in the morning and reached Ashish Hotel, which was ahead of Shamlaji at 1.30 p.m. However, the jeep driver dropped Tulshibhai’s dead body on the side of the road and refused to take them to Thththar village. They stated that thereafter they informed Prafulbhai Sheth at his village that Tulshibhai had died, and they were sitting with his body at his place and about half an hour thereafter, Badabhai Thanaji and other men from the village came, put Tulshibhai’s dead body on a truck, and took him to the village, where they informed the police about the dead body, by which time night had fallen. It was stated that thereafter, on 18.09.2008, he along with Tulshibhai’s wife and son, and the Sarpanch had reached the place where they were working with the dead body of Tulshibhai and after informing Rajubhai, the matter was reported to the police station and a crime was registered. [2.5] The police thereafter conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that a case had been made out against the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC, and accordingly filed a charge sheet. The Magistrate thereafter committed the case to the Sessions Court, which in turn framed a charge and thereafter conducted the trial. After examination of the witnesses, the statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and the accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The Sessions Court, after examining the evidence produced by the prosecution, proceeded to pass the impugned order acquitting the accused, and hence this appeal. [3] Learned APP contended that the Sessions Court was not justified in acquitting the accused, given the fact that the Sessions Court itself had recorded a finding that there was indeed a scuffle on 15.09.2008, and there was also medical evidence indicating that the death was due to the injuries suffered by Tulshibhai. He submitted that the acquittal of the accused merely because Tulshibhai died on 17.09.2008, i.e. two days after the incident, could not be sustained in the light of the ample evidence regarding the scuffle that took place between the accused and the deceased, and also the fact that there was clear evidence that the accused had assaulted the deceased, sat on him, and hit him with a bamboo stick. [4] In our view, the arguments advanced by the learned APP cannot be sustained in the light of the clear findings recorded by the Sessions Court on appreciation of the evidence that was produced before it. The Trial Court has taken into consideration that the accused and two others were staying in the same room. It is stated that the deceased was kneading dough at the time of the incident, and because the accused walked over the dough, an argument erupted in which the accused had physically hit the deceased. The Trial Court, however, has come to the conclusion that though the scuffle was established and there was infliction of blows on the deceased, there was no evidence to indicate that the blows inflicted by the accused resulted in the death of Tulshibhai. [5] The Trial Court has taken into consideration that the scuffle between the accused and the deceased was stopped at the intervention of two other inmates of the room, and the accused was sent out of the room. It has also found that in the evidence of the inmates that Tulshibhai, who was staying outside, also got up and went inside the room. This finding would indicate that the inflicting of blows was not of such a serious nature as to have incapacitated the deceased. The evidence of the inmates also indicates that on the following day, Tulshibhai did not go to work, but had his meals and slept on the roof of the house. This also indicates that the injuries were not of such a debilitating nature as to have caused the death of Tulshibhai. [6] The Sessions Court found from the evidence that on 17.09.2008, Rajubhai, the contactor, had reached the site when Ramesh, one of the inmates of the room, met him and asked him to get biscuits, tea and water for Tulshibhai. He accordingly brought the biscuits and fed biscuits to Tulshibhai, during which time Tulshibhai suddenly vomited, fell down and died. This evidence would indicate that there were no after effects of the injury, since the witness had gone to buy tea and biscuits for Tulshibhai. The consistent evidence that while having tea and biscuits, Tulshibhai suddenly vomited and died indicates that the injuries which he suffered could not have been the cause of his death, more so when the death occurred two days after the scuffle. The consistent evidence that while having tea and biscuits, Tulshibhai suddenly vomited and died indicates that the injuries which he suffered could not have been the cause of his death, more so when the death occurred two days after the scuffle. [7] It may be pertinent to state here that Dr. H. Prajapati, who was conducted the cross-examination, admitted that the injuries described by him could have caused a person to bleed from the nose or even from diarrhea. However, the evidence of the doctor could not lead to the inference that the injuries were caused only because of the scuffle when the deceased was hit by the fists of the accused. In our view, since there was no acceptable evidence, medical or otherwise, to indicate that the death occurred only because of the blows inflicted by the accused two days prior to the death, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the case. [8] In order to come to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of inflicting deadly blows, there must be cogent and unimpeachable evidence that his landing of blows were to a vital part of the body, which had resulted in the death of the deceased. The evidence indicates that there were an exchange of blows between the deceased and the accused, and the fight was separated by the other inmates, after which the accused was asked to go out of the house and the deceased got up and went inside the room. This evidence would indicate that the scuffle was not of such serious a nature, which could have resulted in the death of the accused. The Trial Court has in fact found that there was an improvement in the version of the complainant to the effect that the deceased was hit with a bamboo stick, but this was not forthcoming in the complaint. [9] It may also be noticed that all the co-workers came to the conclusion that the death was not attributable to the scuffle, and that it had occurred due to some unknown cause, and they had in fact taken the body directly to the village of the deceased. But thereafter, at a meeting convened by the elders, it was decided to initiate proceedings. This would also therefore indicate that the complaint was lodged a day after the incident, which casts doubt regarding the motives. But thereafter, at a meeting convened by the elders, it was decided to initiate proceedings. This would also therefore indicate that the complaint was lodged a day after the incident, which casts doubt regarding the motives. [10] We are therefore of the view that the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no acceptable material to convict the accused. It is settled law that merely because the Appellate Court can take a different view, that view should not be adopted, since the Trial Court has had the benefit of appreciating the evidence in a much better way since it has had the benefit of observing the witnesses. We therefore summarily dismiss the appeal. [11] The present appeal of the State is accordingly dismissed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. [12] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back forthwith to the concerned court.