S.M. FAZAL ALI, J.

This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Patna High Court dated 27th September, 1972. The appellants were tried by the sessions Judge under S. 302/149/148/147 and S. 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judge after considering the evidence acquitted all the accused. Thereafter, the State filed an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court reversed the order of acquittal of the appellants and convicted them as follows :-

Nawratan Mahto, Sundar Mahto and Darsani Mahto were convicted under S. 302/34 and were sentenced to under go R.I. for life. Dhanpat Mahto, Barho Mahto, Jageswar Mahto, Pago Mahto, Darsani Chamar and Karu Mahto were convicted under S. 326/149 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. Nawratan Mahto, Darsani Mahto, Dhanpat Mahto, Jageswar Mahto were convicted under S. 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Sundar Mahto, Barho Mahto, Pago Mahto, Darsani Chamar and Karu Mahto were convicted under S. 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Dhanpat Mahto was also convicted under S. 324 I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed against him. Barho Mahto, Jageswar Mahto, Pago Mahto, Darsani Chamar and Karu Mahto were convicted under S. 323 I.P.C. but no separate sentence was passed against them.

2. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court as also of the Sessions Judge. The High Court before reversing the acquittal of the appellants herein, has very clearly displaced the circumstances and the reasons given by the trial Court. A perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Judge would show that the learned Judge rejected the prosecution story on the basis of certain omissions which were not of a material nature. For instance, the Sessions Judge drew an inference adverse to the prosecution from the fact that certain details were not mentioned in the F.I.R. This was not a sound ground for rejecting the prosecution case as the broad details are to be given in the Court and not generalized in the F.I.R. Moreover, it has been proved that the dead body was found at the Chhaur which is at some distance from the field and the nature of the injuries sustain by P.W. 6 were also serious. Similarly, the trial Court relied on the fact that foot prints were not found on the filed. The High Court has rightly explained that as the investigating officer reached the spot at 6 p.m. his first task was to prepare the inquest report and examine the witnesses who were present there. He would have inspected the field only after completing these formalities and by that time it would be dark and the foot prints were not likely to be seen. The learned Sessions Judge also relied on certain minor discrepancies which were found in the statement of all the witnesses made before the Police and those stated in Court which the High Court rightly rejected as being of no consequence. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse and he had drawn wrong conclusions from the facts and overlooked important evidence which proved the prosecution case. Admittedly there was no animus between the parties. In this case as many as five witnesses viz. P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 had been injured in the course of the occurrence who supported the prosecution case fully. Apart from these witnesses, P.Ws. 10 & 12 have also proved the occurrence. The High Court has fully discussed the evidence of these witnesses and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has fully prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not find any effort of law or any error on the appreciation of evidence so as to warrant our interference in this appeal. Lastly, Mr. Sahny submitted that so far as the three appellants who have been convicted under S. 302/34, are concerned, they should (be) convicted under S. 326 I.P.C. Having regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased and the manner in which he was assaulted, we are satisfied that the conviction under S. 302/34 was fully justified. For these reasons, therefore, we uphold the conviction as well as the conviction (sentence ) of the appellants and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.