JAYANT PATEL, J.

1. The present appeal arises from the judgement & order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.153/04, whereby the accused has been acquitted for the offence under sections 307, 324, 326 and 506(2) of IPC read with section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

2. It may be recorded that Criminal Appeal No.1709/05 has been preferred by the State against the order of the acquittal. Whereas Criminal Revision Application No.375/05 has been preferred by the original complainant against the very judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge for acquittal.

3. The short facts are that the complaint Ex-12 came to be filed by Jagrutiben, p.w.1, wife of the victim with Visnagar Police Station, stating that today, at about 1.00 noon, when she was with her husband in the compound of their house, the accused came to their place and gave a blow to her husband on right side of the stomach and her husband had fallen down and when the second blow was given, she and brother of her husband Prakashkumar, p.w.7, intervened and at that time, the brother of her husband Prakashkumar was injured with the knife. Thereafter, the other persons of the area had come and the accused had gone away by saying that “today because of the other persons her husband has been saved but when he will meet alone, he shall kill him”. The cause of dispute was stated to be that of playing Casio (musical instrument).

4. The aforesaid complaint was investigated by the police and charge-sheet was filed against the accused, respondent herein. The case was thereafter committed to the sessions court being Sessions Case No.153/04. The charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge and as the accused had not pleaded guilty, the trial was conducted. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 11 witnesses, the details of whom are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at para 6 of the judgment. The documentary evidence was produced of 14 witnesses, the details of which are at the very paragraph of the judgment and order. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused denied the evidence against him and in further statement, he stated that when he was at pan galla, at that time, the victim had come in drunken condition and asked as to why he is playing Casio and he said that “play pashi pashi” and thereafter, there was altercation of words and he got excited and started abusing and had bitten on the right thigh. In the meantime, Prakashbhai had come on galla and the mother of the accused had also come and she was inquiring as to why the incident had happened. At that time, the victim and Prakashbhai started quarreling and the victim brought the stick and Prakash brought knife. The victim gave a blow to the mother of the accused on the backside and Prakash when was giving blow, her mother escaped and the blow hurt the victim and that is how the injury was caused. The defence also examined 5 witnesses and produced documentary evidence of 6 documents. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the prosecution and the defence and the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the accused and therefore, acquitted the accused from the offences charged. Under the circumstances, the present appeal has been preferred against the very judgment and order of acquittal of the learned Sessions Judge.

5. We have heard Mr. H.K. Patel, learned APP for the State as well as Mr.Brahmbhatt for the original complainant. We have heard Ms.Joshi for Mr.Premal R. Joshi for the original accused. We have gone through the judgment and the reasons recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides have taken us to the entire evidence on record.

6. The important aspect is that the injury upon the victim Mahendrabhai Parmar, p.w.6, is proved and can be said as rather admitted by the defence since it is not the c