and attributed the role only to accused No.1. The evidence of investigating officer and the evidence of other witnesses coupled with the charge framed clearly indicate that PW.1 is changing his version from time to time. If really he was present when his son was attacked, there is no reason for him to change his version from stage to stage. Further, if really PW.1 was present and the accused were attacking him as alleged by him in the earlier statement, the injuries sustained by him could have been grievous and more in number compared to what was found by PW.11, the doctor, who treated PW.1. As per the evidence of PW.1, accused No.1 attacked him with a knife, but the injuries sustained by him, as per Ex.P9-the wound certificate, are simple in nature. PW.1 being a person aged about 65 years, would have definitely received serious cut injuries if he was attacked with a knife. It is also to be noted that, PW.1 in his evidence-in-chief PW.1 deposed that accused No.1 attacked him with knife on his left leg, left hand and left side of the face, but the doctor did not find any injury on the left hand, on the other hand, he finds cut injury on left eye brow, cut injury on the right leg, one lacerated wound over the right leg and swelling of left thigh on lateral side. Therefore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of PW.1 with regard to injuries sustained by him. Keeping these circumstances in our mind, the defence taken by the accused that PW.1 sustained injuries when he fell down from a chair in his house cannot be brushed aside, more so in view of the admission by the doctor in
