1. - The appellant State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30.6.1983 of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra whereby he acquitted all the accused respondents of the offences u /ss. 307, 341 & 323 IPC.

2. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents.

3. It may be stated that during the pendency of the appeal the accused-respondent Bher Singh died. The appeal, therefore, stands abated against him.

4. I have also scanned the prosecution evidence. The learned Sessions Judge discussed the prosecution evidence in detail. From the medical evidence he concluded that the prosecution did not produce the person who put the X-ray plates. None was also examined to prove the X-ray plates. Thus Ex. P/13 has not been proved as to before whom the same was taken. He, therefore, concluded that prosecution has failed to prove that the injury sustained by Simartha PW 5 were grievous in nature. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge discarded the testimony of Simartha, his wife Panna and other witnesses on account of material discrepancies, omissions and contradictions. The finding of the learned Ses