( 1 ) THE appellant Pompa was charged with having committed the murder of one Sheikanbi of Raichur, on the night of 18-6-1972. The learned Sesaions judge, Raichur, who tried the appellant acquitted him of the charge of murder, but, however, found him guilty of the offence u/s. 323 IPC. , and senteneed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the appellant was keeping Sheikanbi as his mistress. On the night of 18-6-1972 the appellant went to the hut where the deceased was living along with her mother Sahirabi (PW. 6) and demanded her money as usual and on her pleading inability to pay him any money as she had none, the appellant picked up a quarrel, assaulted her mercilessly with the result she sustained injuries and shortly thereafter died. ( 3 ) THE evidence against the appellant consists of the oral testimony of four witnesses namely Sahirabi (PW. 6), Shekar (PW. 7), Fakiramma (PW. 3) and Badesab (PW. 9 ). Their evidence, in substance, is, that the appellant came to the hut of the deceased by mid-night with a petromax light and demanded money from Sheikanabi. On her pleading inability to pay money to the appellant as she had no money with her, the appellant assulted her with stick and that was snatched away by PW. 6. Thereupon, the appellant picked up a blow-pipe that was lying there and assaulted her and that was snatched away by PW. 6 and thereafter, according to these witnesses, the appellant picked up a stick and assaulted her. Having not been satisfied with that he caught hold of her hair and pulled her down. These witnesses caught hold of the accused and sent information to the police. The Head Constable came there and took the accused to the police station. Sheikanabi was removed to the hospital where Dr. Krishna Rao kulkarni examined her and pronounced that she was dead. ( 4 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appellant assaulted sheikanabi as a result of which she died, as stated by the alleged witnesses? in deciding this question we have to deal with the medical evidence in the case. Dr. Krishna Rao K'ularkni (PW. 10) examined Sheikanabi when she was produced that night and pronounced that she was dead. He did not notice any external injuries. in deciding this question we have to deal with the medical evidence in the case. Dr. Krishna Rao K'ularkni (PW. 10) examined Sheikanabi when she was produced that night and pronounced that she was dead. He did not notice any external injuries. He conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body on the following day. According to him he did not find any ante-mortem injuries either externally or internally. He found one post-mortem injury over the right side of the face, the description of which is given as the whole of the skin and soft tissues of the right eye were absent on the right side of the face exposing mandible, maxilla and teeth. It is definite that this injury was caused after the death of sheikanabi by animals by eating the body. He was unable to give any opinion as to the cause of death from his post-mortem examination. Suspecting that it might be a case of poisoning he sent the viscera. The chemical examiner opined that no poison was detected. Therefore Dr. Krishna rao Kulkarni in his evidence stated that the death of Sheikanabi was in all probability due to natural causes. ( 5 ) IF the medical evidence is accepted as it has got to be it is clear that the appellant could not have assaulted the deceased Sheikenabi. Where there is a conflict between the medical evidence and the oral test mony of witnesses, the evidence can be assessed in two ways. A Court* can either believe the prosecution witnesses unreservedly and explain away the conflict between 'their evidence and medical evidence by holding that the witnesses have merely exaggerated the incident or rely upon the medical evidence and approach the oral testimony with caution testing it in the light of the medical evidence. The first method can be applied in cases where the oral evidence is not open to any doubt and creates confidence. Where the evidence is not of that character, when the medical evidence is not open to any doubt or suspicion, the only and judicial way of assessing the evidenc is the second method. ( 6 ) THE medical evidence in this case is not open to doubt or suspicion. The oral evidence is wholly unbelievable and is inconsistent with the proved facts. There is no doubt in this case that the deceased sheikanabi died a natural death. ( 6 ) THE medical evidence in this case is not open to doubt or suspicion. The oral evidence is wholly unbelievable and is inconsistent with the proved facts. There is no doubt in this case that the deceased sheikanabi died a natural death. Taking advantage of that fact the alleged eye witnesses in this case have falsely implicated the appellant for reasons best known to them. If really the appellant had assaulted the deceased, as stated by this witness, one would naturally expect a number of antemortem injuries on the deceased. The absence of injuries either external or internal clearly goes to show that there is no truth in the story of the alleged eye witnesses. ( 7 ) I am, therefore, quite clear in my mind that this case fails because the result of the autopsy was that Sheikanabi died in all probability a natural death. We cannot speculate about the cause of death and cannot, on the material furnished, hold that the accused assaulted Sheikanabi. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge having come to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove that the death of Sheikanabi was not due to violence, was wrong in believing the testimony of these witnesses and holding that the appellant committed the offence punishable under section 323 IPC. ( 9 ) I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and acquit him. --- *** --- .