JUDGMENT
D.P. Singh, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant Vijay Mandal against the judgment and order dated 30.4.1992 by which the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Godda has acquitted the respondents from charges under Sections 307/324/325/149 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 31 of 1987.
2. This appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not considered the ocular evidence and discarded the consistent statements of injured persons. According to this memo of appeal, the trial Court has further failed to appreciate that the injured persons were hospitalised for long period.
3. This appeal was admitted on 19.8.1992 with notice to the respondents, who have appeared before the trial Court and executed bonds. However, when the appeal was called for final disposal, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. Learned A.P.P. appeared for the State and the respondents were also present through their counsel, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the consistent evidence of PWs 1 to 4 supports the prosecution case. According to him, the injury reports were proved by PW 5 showing the injuries on four persons caused by sharp cutting weapons. Therefore, the factum of assault has been proved beyond doubts.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the prosecution version was not supported by any cogent evidence and the charges against the respondents could not be proved as the trial Court has rightly found and held the witnesses inconsistent and contradicting each other. It was also pointed out that the place of occurrence itself has been shifted from village road to village pond. According to learned Counsel for the respondents, this was case lodged falsely for minor exchange of blows taking place between them. He further pointed out that the Station Diary Entry No. 378 dated 26.2.1982 has been considered by the trial Court.
6. I have gone through the evidence on record and the reasonings given by the trial Court vide paragraphs-7 to 12 of the impugned judgment. He has mentioned vide paragraph-12 that the witnesses examined as injured witnesses were not trustworthy because they gave different versions of assault taking place upon them. It has further found and held that the number of accused persons varied with each witness. The injuries found on the witnesses were simple in nature. The occurrence has taken place in February 1982 almost twenty-five years back and the trial continued for nearly ten years. Keeping view of these facts and circumstances, I do not find any material on record to disagree with the view taken by the trial Court. I further find that there is no patent illegality in the order of acquittal passed against the respondents.
7. Having regard to the above stated facts and circumstances, I find that the present appeal has got no merit. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The respondents be released from the liabilities of their bail bonds.