3 Total 7 witnesses were examined. After carefully going through the reasoning given by the trial Court, it appears that the trial court was influenced by the discrepancy in the oral evidence of PW3 so far as the omission on the vital part of use of razer blade by respondent/accused No.3 for inflicting the injury on the injured PW5. Also what influenced the Court, was the probable defence raised by the respondent/accused that two days prior to the incident the injured PW5 had cut some trees around his house. On that count, there was dispute over some immovable property between the said injured and the respondent/accused. On such incident of cutting of trees, the respondent had approached the Forest Department and Forest Department visited the spot, conducted panchnama in which respondent No.2 acted as a pancha. That time the wooden logs of the trees were confiscated by the Forest Department. As such there was dispute between the parties. Considering these aspects, the trial court came to the conclusion as to failure of the prosecution to establish the case against the three accused/respondent mainly on account of the nonestablishment of seizure of razor blade from the spot and availability of such type of razor blade very easily in the market or in
