Short Note : 1. The prosecution story, in short, is that accused Chhotelal sold his property to the deceased Jagannath and resided with him. There were continuous bickerings between the appellant and the deceased. There were frequent quarrels also between Mst. Savitri (PW. 2), wife of the deceased and Mst. Sukhraji (PW. 5), wife of accused Chhotelal. On 8-1-1975 at about 10 A.M., the appellant dealt blows of Khurpi (Art. 1) at the neck of Jagannath and caused his death. Smt. Savitri (PW. 2) called Pragnarayan (PW. 1), brother of the deceased, who took the body of Jagannath in a bullock-cart to the Police Station Umri. By that time Jagannath, though unconscious, was alive; but he died before reaching the Police Station. 2. The solitary witness, who had seen the occurrence, is Smt. Savitri (PW. 2), widow of the deceased. Smt. Savitri in her statement has said that Omprakash was present when the incident took place. Then, as far as the injuries on the person of the deceased are concerned, she says in her statement : "Jagannath Ke Gardan Par Chhotelal Ne Khurpi Ka War Kiya To Wah Gir Pada Aur Phir Behosh Raha. Wah Bol Nahin Paya." 3. This clearly indicates that only one blow was given by the appellant to the deceased. She also says in her statement that there were certain altercations between the appellant and the members of her family. But the evidence of this witness is contrary to the medical evidence. In the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 14-A) there are two injuries mentioned by Dr. Saxena (PW. 18). Similarly, in his statement before the Court, the Doctor has said that there were two injuries on the dead body of the deceased. 4. Held : The importance of medical evidence is considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitra and another v. Sunil Chandra Roy and another ( AIR 1960 SC 706 ). Relying on this, we have to see whether we can believe the eye-witness Smt. Savitri (PW. 2). We think, we should not, because there is a direct conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. In this position, the importance of examining Omprakash is made out. Relying on this, we have to see whether we can believe the eye-witness Smt. Savitri (PW. 2). We think, we should not, because there is a direct conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. In this position, the importance of examining Omprakash is made out. Omprakash, being the eye-witness, would have been in a position to say whether two blows were given by the accused or he dealt only one blow, and non-examination of such a material witness raises a presumption against the prosecution, and we have no other go but to raise that presumption. If we raise that presumption, the position is that the eye-witness Smt. Savitri (PW. 2), who is produced by the prosecution, is belied by the medical evidence. 5. Mere absconsion cannot raise any presumption against the accused. That is the weakest circumstance possible so far as any guilt is concerned. The accused surrendered himself before the Court of Sessions Judge at Bhind on 1-3-1977. The trial Court has said that he has not given any explanation for his absence from the village and, thus, it amounts to an incriminating circumstance. But this alone cannot prove any guilt against the accused when we have disbelieved the testimony of the eye-witness. The trial Court has considered the motive in non-payment of Rs. 200 by the deceased to the accused, which is held to be the cause of the quarrel resulting in the commission of the crime. But it has also come to the conclusion that quarrels were frequent between the deceased and the accused. Consequently, we cannot say that this is the motive for causing the death of Jagannath. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved beyond doubt that the appellant is the author of the crime. Consequently, the finding given by the trial Court to this effect has to be set aside and, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, we should acquit him of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. AIR 1960 SC 706 relied on. Appeal allowed.