Manju Goel, J.

1. The judgment assailed is passed in FIR No. 645/80 under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at police station Kingsway Camp, acquitting the four accused, Ashok Kumar, Leelu, Raju & Vinay@ Binny@ Lelin, of the charge of having attempted to commit murder of Jawahar Singh.

2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under:

The four accused, Ashok Kumar, Raju, Vinay @ Binny @ Lelin (misspelt in the impugned judgment as Lenin) & Leelu appeared at the tea stall near C.C. Colony Higher Sec6ndary school on the evening of 21.7.1980, where the deceased Jawahar Singh and his brother Attar Singh were taking tea. While Leelu secured Jawahar Singh with his arms the other three accused, Vinay @ Binny, Ashok Kumar & Raju, gave stab blows to Jawahar Singh. The brother, Attar Singh, raised hue and cry as Jawahar Singh fell unconscious. He was removed to the hospital by Attar Singh and their mother. The police sub-inspector who arrived at the hospital recorded the statement of Attar Singh and the FIR was accordingly registered. On the arrest of the four accused persons and on their disclosure three knives concealed under a stone near Rani Jhansi Road were recovered. The accused were challaned and thereafter committed to Sessions and charged under Sections 307/34 of IPC.

3. During trial both Jawahar Singh and Attar Singh appeared in the witness box as PW-4 & PW-5. The three recovered knives were produced as P-2, P-3 & P-4. The disclosure statement of Ashok Kumar is proved as Ex. PW -4/F. The other witness examined include Dr. S.C. Devgun (PW -6) who examined Jawahar Singh and found 10 incised wounds on different parts of his body. Two of these wounds were on his back. The trial court on examining the evidence noticed certain discrepancies in the testimonies of the police officers in respect of the time of arrest of the four accused persons and about the mode of recovery of the knives. The trial court also observed that behaviour of Attar Singh who claimed to have been present at the scene of occurrence was unnatural. The trial court also found that the prosecution had failed to produce certain material witnesses, namely, people present at the tea shop, taxi driver who carried the injured to the hospital and mother of the injured, who accompanied him to the hospital. There was also omission to collect material evidence in respect of the blood stains in the vehicle used for transporting the injured. The trial court also disbelieved the prosecution story of their being a motive for murder, namely, a dispute over a piece of land described as Gher. On such appreciation of evidence, the trial court acquitted all the accused in the case.

4. The state files the appeal contending that the decision of the trial court is perverse and that it has unreasonably highlighted certain contradictions in the statement of witnesses and was in error in disbelieving the truthful witnesses, particularly, PW-4 & PW-5.

5. We have carefully read the trial court judgment and have heard the counsel for the two sides and have given our consideration to the evaluation of evidence on record.

6. A striking feature of the impugned judgment is that while it weighs the testimony of Attar Singh, PW -4, the brother of the injured, and disbelieves the police witnesses in the matter of recovery of the knives and the arrest of the accused, it makes absolutely no observation about the testimony of the injured himself. It is not a case of disbelieving the injured. It is a case of ignoring the testimony altogether. The entire judgment does not discuss the testimony of PW-5 at all as if that testimony has no bearing on the case.

7. In our opinion, in a case under Section 307 IPC, the person on whose life the attempt is made or who has been injured in such attempt is the most important witness. The injured had received 10 incised wounds. Even without examining any weapon it can be safely said that the injuries had been caused by knife. The injuri