JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant Ghasi Ram and Ramkumar sons of Jiwan Ram, residents of village Harsawa Kalan, were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, under sections 307, 326 and 324 read with section 34 I.P.C. By his judgment dated May 25, 1973, the learned Judge acquitted them of the offence against section 307 read with section 34 I. P. C. He, however, found them guilty of the offence punishable under sections 326 and 324 read with section 34 IPC. Consequently he convicted each of them under sections 326 and 324 and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 200/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively. 2. The case of the prosecution which resulted in conviction and sentence of the appellants as aforementioned is that on March 11, 1971 at about 9-9-30 p.m. they were lying in ambush by the side of the well which separates the chowk from the galiyar (village street) at the time when Mohan PW is said to have returned from the house of one Girdhari. It is alleged that no sooner did Mohan pass that side than the appellants assaulted him. Ramkumar is alleged to have held him in his arms from behind when Ghasiram inflicted knife blows on his face causing a permanent privation of his right eye. It is alleged that the eye-ball had to be subsequently removed in an operation which was necessitated on account of these injuries. Ramkumar also stabbed him twice with his knife. After infliction of these injuries, the appellants made good their escape. Mohan fell down unconscious in the galiyar. PWs Hardeva, Bhagirath and Manna Ram saw him lying injured there and removed him to his house. PW Ramgopal, father of Mohan, immediately took him to the Fatehpur hospital and from there to Sikar because no doctor was available at Fatehpur. It is alleged that Mohan was unconscious throughout. It was in the Sikar hospital that Mohan regained consciousness at about mid night. He then disclosed to his father that the appellants were the assailants, who had inflicted injuries to him in a deceitful manner. Ramgopal then went to the police station Fatehpur and lodged the F I.R, there on March 12, 1971 at 5.30 a.m. 3. It was in the Sikar hospital that Mohan regained consciousness at about mid night. He then disclosed to his father that the appellants were the assailants, who had inflicted injuries to him in a deceitful manner. Ramgopal then went to the police station Fatehpur and lodged the F I.R, there on March 12, 1971 at 5.30 a.m. 3. PW Sugan Singh, the Investigating Officer, went to the village of the parties on March 12, 1971, in the morning to conduct the investigation. He met Ram Kumar accused there. Ramkumar showed him the injuries suffered by him in the course of this transaction alleging that Mohan had attacked him at his (Ramkumar's) Chabutra threatening that he would bite off Ramkumar's nose with his teeth, and that he had actually bitten his nose through and through. 4. After completion of investigation the police submitted two separate reports, one against Mohan charging him of the commission of the offence punishable under sections 448 and 323 I.P.C , and the other against the appellants charging them of the offences against sections 307 and 326 read with section 34 I.P.C. Mohan has since been acquitted. As already stated the appellants were tried convicted and sentenced for the offences under sections 326 and 324 I.P. C. 5. In the present trial, the prosecution examined Bheron Singh, Hardev, Bhagirath, Bhimaram, Manna, Harlal, Ramgopal, Mohan, Mala Ram and S. I. Sugan Chand as witnesses in support of its case. Besides, Dr. J. P. Taunk and Dr. Bhagwati Prasad were also examined by the prosecution as PWs 11 and PW. 12 respectively. 6. It has been conclusively proved on the evidence of Dr. Bhagwati Prasad Jangid that both Mohan PW and Ramkumar accused were admitted as indoor patients in the Sikar hospital on March 12, 1971 and that there were five injuries on the body of Mohan PW and two on Ramkumar accused. The injuries suffered by Mohan PW included a penetrating wound 1" x 1/4" x through & through on the right eye-brow placed transversely. This injury had penetrated to the cornea of the right eye destroying the vision from that eye. Dr. Jagdish Prasad Taunk stated that he had conducted the evisceration of the right eye of Mohan Singh which had perforation of cornea, expulsion of lens and vitreous from it. This injury had penetrated to the cornea of the right eye destroying the vision from that eye. Dr. Jagdish Prasad Taunk stated that he had conducted the evisceration of the right eye of Mohan Singh which had perforation of cornea, expulsion of lens and vitreous from it. He made it clear that the eye was depressed and sunken because of the low tension and that if the evisceration of the right eye had not been done, the left eye could have been damaged due to sympathetic ophthalmitis. Dr. Bhagwati Prasad deposed that he had examined Ramkumar accused on March 12, 1971 and found two abrasions on his left finger and a lacerated wound 1" x ⅛" through and through on the left nostril. 7. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that both Mohan PW and Ramkumar accused were found to be having injuries on their persons on March 12, 1971 and that those injuries were inflicted within 24 hours of the said examination. 8. PW.5 Hardey and Bhagirath who are alleged to have recovered Mohan PW. from the Galiyar to his house with the help of PW. Manna Ram did not suppore the prosecution story in their deposition in the trial. They were declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor, who was, therefore, permitted to cross-examination he them. These witnesses are not reliable at all. It will be seen that while they admitted that they had removed the injured Mohan PW. from the Galiyar to his house and had accompanied him from there to the hospital they were not prepared to say that Mohan had any injury on his person at that time. No reliance can possibly be placed on the evidence of such witnesses whether for or against the prosecution. 9. PW. Mala Ram a resident of village Chhinnu, PS. Laxmangarh came the stand as one of the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. His testimony is in on the fact of it suspect. He is a chance witness who would have us believe that he travelled all the way from his village to the village of the parties in search of his missing cancel and that he had arrived in the village of the parties just in time to witness this occurrence. Moreover, he happens to be a relation of Mohan PW. being a cousin of the latter's mother. Moreover, he happens to be a relation of Mohan PW. being a cousin of the latter's mother. His conduct in relation to the occurrence is highly unnatural. He would have us believe that although he had seen the appellants infliction knife blows to Mohan PW. his nephew, he did not challenge them and that instead he quitely left the place and went back to his own village. Had Mala Ram witnessed the occurrence as alleged by him, he would have certainly stayed there to give some help to his injured nephew and then assisted other persons in removing him to his house. His own testimony quite clearly indicates that he had not witnessed the occurrence and that he is a put up witness. He readily came forward to oblige the prosecution because he is a relation of Mohan PW. It is significant to note that his name was not mentioned in the F. I. R. as an aye witness of the occurrence. For all these reasons, I am not prepared to place any reliance on the testimony of PW. Mala Ram whether for or against the prosecution. 10. There is thus no eye witness of the occurrence except Mohan, the injured himself, for ascertaining the truth of this transaction. Mohan has, of course,, fully supported the prosecution story as narrated above. There are, however, serious gaps in his evidence. His evidence is not of the type on which one may place implicit reliance for recording a conviction against the appellants. It will be recalled that the defence of the appellant is that Mohan had attached Ramkumar accused, who was sitting at his own chabutra and that he bit off his nostrils through. It is alleged that Mohan was in drunken condition at that time. Mohan admitted that there was a dancing carnival going on in the village that night and that he and Harlal PW had decided to join that carnival. He further admitted that both he and Harlal had passed by the Chabutra of the appellants, a short while before the occurrence. He stated that they had gone that side to invite Girdhari, one of their friends, to join them for going to the carnival. He admitted that the occurrence had taken place on his way back from Girdhari's house. He further admitted that both he and Harlal had passed by the Chabutra of the appellants, a short while before the occurrence. He stated that they had gone that side to invite Girdhari, one of their friends, to join them for going to the carnival. He admitted that the occurrence had taken place on his way back from Girdhari's house. He, however, prevaricated when questioned about the presence of the appellants at their chabutra when he passed by the side of that chabutra. At first he pleaded ignorance, if the appellants were sitting on their chabutra at that time or not A little later in his statement he took a somersault and denied that he did not see any of the appellants sitting on their chabutra. He gratuitously added in this context that he had seen the appellants father sitting at the said chabutra at that time. He was obviously at pain in trying to suppress the presence of the two appellants on their own chabutra. It was left to his companion Harlal to admit this fact that both the appellants were sitting on their chabutra at the time when they passed by that side, on their way to Girdhari's house and also at the time when they left Girdhari's house for returning from there. For some curious reason Harlal says that he parted company with Mohan PW at Girdhari's house and that on their way back both of them took different routes. All the same he admitted that he had seen the two appellants present on their chabutra even at the time when they were returning. 11. Why PW Mohan was trying to suppress the presence of the two appellants on their chabutra at the time of occurrence is a question, the answer to which is not difficult to imagine. It has already been stated that the appellants had advanced the defence plea that they were attacked by Monan PW in a drunken condition at their own chabutra. 12. PW Mohan and for that matter the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries to Ramkumar accused. The non-explanation of the injuries to Ramkumar which were obviously sustained by him in the course of the same transaction is a circumstance which in the facts of this case would probabilist the defence version. 12. PW Mohan and for that matter the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries to Ramkumar accused. The non-explanation of the injuries to Ramkumar which were obviously sustained by him in the course of the same transaction is a circumstance which in the facts of this case would probabilist the defence version. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar : A. I. R. 1976 S.C. 2263. 13. For all these reasons, hold that the case against the appellants is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Their appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of conviction and sentence against them is set aside. Instead they are acquitted. They are already on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged. *******