informant-P.W.-8. Thus, no question of miss-identity of the accused whatsoever arises. His presence with his mother was absolutely natural at the place of occurrence. Looking to the crossexamination of P.W.-8, it appears that there is no major omission or contradiction and in fact, nothing is coming out in favour of this appellant in the cross-examination of P.W.8, when he himself is an injured eye witness. There might have been some error in counting the blows, but, the fact remains that the appellantaccused was identified by the informant and others; the weapon was identified; the place of occurrence is proved beyond reasonable doubt and the weapon alleged to have been used is a sharp cutting instrument and all the injuries are incised wounds. Thus, even if there is an error in counting of the blows, no benefit can be given to the appellant-accused. When the occurrence has taken place, there was nobody else than this appellant in causing injuries upon the body of the deceased nor there is any suggestion in the cross-examination by this appellant that other than this appellant, few persons were involved in causing injuries to the deceased. Thus, even if, an error is committed by the injured eye witness in counting the number of blows, looking to the peculiar facts of the present case, it appears that except this appellant, nobody else has committed assault upon the deceased and, thus, no benefit can be given to this appellant. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court.
