and her son by means of sticks. According to her,
one of the accused poured kerosene over her person
and tried to ignite her. As against this, according
to P.W. 2, the accused persons entered the house
and tried to ignite his wife by pouring kerosene
and assaulted her and their son. He is silent on
assault on him. What was also weighed with the
trial Court was the silence on the part of the
prosecution witnesses as to how the kerosene was
brought by one of the accused. However, this aspect
is not of much significance but still what was
weighed with the trial Court was another
circumstance as to non-examination of any of the
neighbours though during the incident of such
assault various neighbours were present and they
had seen the incident. Cumulative effect of the
substantive evidence of only three witnesses led
the trial Court to doubt the case of the
complainant, thus, giving benefit of doubt to the
accused persons acquitting them of all the charges.
6.Considering the effect of substantive
evidence and the reason given by the trial Court
and considering the discrepancies in the inter se
evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and 2,
there is nothing to interfere with the judgment and
order of acquittal, considering the rights of this
Court in interfering with the acquittals.
Consequently, there is no substance in the present
