JUDGMENT : K.S. Hegde, J. This appeal from jail is directed against the decision of the High Court of Gujarat allowing the appeal filed by the State and convicting the appellant under section 307, Indian Penal Code in place of his conviction under section 324, Indian Penal Code. The High Court sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years as against the sentence of eighteen months rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court. 2. The prosecution case is. as follows: 3. On the evening of September 1, 1965, when P.W. Samat and the deceased Aher Alsi Mulu were working in their field, the accused went there and questioned them as to why they had let their cattle loose and allowed them to graze his crops. They retorted by saying that if he was aggrieved, he could take the cattle to the pound. Thereafter it is said that the accused went home saying that he would report the matter to his land-lady. The further case of the prosecution is that when the deceased, witness Samat and another were returning to their house, they found the accused and Radha Bai, his land-lady, sitting by the side of their cattle shed. At that time, the accused had an axe in his hands. On seeing them the accused attacked the deceased Alsi Mulu with the axe and caused two severe injuries, one on the head and the other on the back as a result of which Alsi Multi died. 4. The prosecution case is supported by the solitary testimony of P. W. Samat. In the committal court the accused and Radha Bai were jointly tried for causing the death of Alsi Mulu. The information laid before the police was that the accused had caused the head injury sustained by the deceased and Radha Bai had caused the injury found on the back of the deceased but in the committal court P. W. Samat backed out of his earlier version and attributed both the injuries to the accused. He did not depose against Radha Bai. Radha Bai was accordingly discharged. The accused alone was committed to the Sessions Court to take his trial. He did not depose against Radha Bai. Radha Bai was accordingly discharged. The accused alone was committed to the Sessions Court to take his trial. In the committal court the accused pleaded that when he was returning from his field after a quarrel with the deceased, P.W. Samat and another, he was belaboured by the party of the deceased with sticks and at that tithe in self-defence he attacked the deceased with the axe that was in his hand. 5. In the trial court the accused did no t take the plea of self-defence which he had taken in the committal court. In that court he disowned all responsibility for the injuries sustained by the deceased. The trial court disbelieved P.W. Samat's version that the knife injury on the back of the deceased was caused by the accused but accepted his evidence that the head injury sustained by the deceased was caused by the accused. It accordingly convicted the accused under section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. 6. The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused under section 302, I.P.C. and the High Court accepted the appeal in part and convicted the accused under section 307, I.P.C. 7. As mentioned earlier, the prosecution case rests on the solitary testimony of P.W. Samat. He has been disbelieved in material particulars. He has given different versions at different stages. At the first stage, he stated that the head injury found on the person of the deceased had been caused by the accused and the back injury had been caused by Radha Bai. He went back on that version before the committal court and stated that the accused alone was responsible for both those injuries. Much faith cannot be placed on his evidence. His evidence has not been corroborated in any manner. 8. There is no doubt that the accused had sustained as many as six injuries at about the time of the occurrence. We have earlier mentioned that the incident took place on the evening of 1st September 1965. On the, morning of September 2, 1965, the accused was examined by Dr. Dave, who found on the person of the accused as many as six injuries, two of which were lacerated injuries. According to Dr. Dave these injuries could have been caused by a blunt substance like sticks. On the, morning of September 2, 1965, the accused was examined by Dr. Dave, who found on the person of the accused as many as six injuries, two of which were lacerated injuries. According to Dr. Dave these injuries could have been caused by a blunt substance like sticks. It is clear from his evidence that those injuries could have been sustained at about the time the deceased sustained injuries. We have earlier noticed that according to the plea taken by the accused in the committal court he had been attacked by the deceased and his companions with sticks and that he attacked the deceased in self-defence. The statement of the accused given before the committal court receives considerable support from the testimony of Dr. Dave. P. W. Samat has no explanation whatsoever for the injuries found on the person of the accused. He is evidently suppressing the truth. If the version put forward by the accused is true-we think it probable-then he was well within his rights in causing even grievous hurt to the deceased. The trial court and the High Court were wrong in refusing to examine the plea of self-defence taken by the accused on the ground that he had abandoned it in the trial court. The circumstances established in the case go to show that the plea in question is well founded. Even otherwise it is unsafe to convict the appellant on the basis of the evidence given by P.W. Samat. 9. For the reasons mentioned above we allow this appeal and acquit the accused. He shall be set at liberty forthwith.