Short Note : The accused-appellant Nagria and his brother acquitted accused Jabaria are the nephews of the deceased Bhalu, resident of the village Chusbaida, Police Station, Ambua. There was some dispute between the deceased and the accused regarding some lands. The deceased had kept Thavria as his Ghar Janwai. Ramtu (P.W.2) is the widow and Bali (P.W.3) is the daughter of the deceased. On 17-3-1973 at about 6:30 p.m. the deceased, Thavria (P.W.1), Ramtu (P.W.2) and Bali (P.W.3) were sitting in front of the hut of the deceased when both these accused came armed with bows and arrows. After coming there, the accused Nagaria abused the deceased and asked him as to why he was not giving the lands to which he was entitled to. Thereafter he shot two arrows at the deceased - one of which struck the deceased on the lateral side of the left chest because of which the left lung and the right side of the heart were damaged. The arrow which struck the deceased was pulled out immediately after it was shot by the accused but the deceased died an instantaneous death. 2. The defence of the accused in the trial Court was that he was innocent; that his brother had lost his son; that while he was going to his brother, Thavria shot an arrow at him and that he does not know how and under what circumstances the deceased Bhalu died. 3. The learned trial Judge, believing the prosecution evidence, rejected the defence raised by the appellant and convicted him. As no reliable evidence establishing complicity of the other accused Jabaria was found, he was acquitted. Held : The defence of the accused is that it was Thavria (P.W.1) who had shot an arrow at him while he was going to his brother's house and was passing from in front of the house of the deceased. Thus, there are two versions which emerged from the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses in the trial Court as well as in the investigation. The fact that the accused was subjected to arrow injury was denied by the prosecution witnesses but on this important question they are contradicted by their previous statements. In these circumstances, their statements, as made in the trial Court, cannot be accepted as a true and honest account of the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased. The fact that the accused was subjected to arrow injury was denied by the prosecution witnesses but on this important question they are contradicted by their previous statements. In these circumstances, their statements, as made in the trial Court, cannot be accepted as a true and honest account of the incident which resulted in the death of the deceased. The defence of the accused in these circumstances becomes highly probable. Once that is so, the prosecution story as given by the prosecution witnesses cannot be accepted as absolutely reliable. In any event, the prosecution case against the accused cannot be regarded as free from doubt. Once doubt is created in the prosecution story, the benefit of it must go to the accused and not to the prosecution. In the aforesaid circumstances, firstly we are not satisfied with the prosecution story as deposed to by Thavria (P.W.1), Ramtu (P.W.2) and Bali (P.W.3), as absolutely reliable and secondly that the prosecution case against the accused is not free from doubt. Accordingly we are not satisfied that the prosecution has established the charge against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. As the prosecution case is doubtful, the conviction of the accused cannot be maintained on such evidence. We, accordingly, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, hold that the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Appeal allowed.