Short Note : 1. A few days before the present incident, which occurred on 24.10.1974, Lattu father of appellant Bhavsingh had died. Bhavsingh had a feeling that Kandi was a dakan (witch) who had taken away the life of his father and, therefore, he wanted to kill her. On 24.10.1974 when Kandi along with her husband Gopalia (PW-1) were sleeping in a portion of their hut along with their children, all the appellants each one armed with palia came there. Appellant Bhavsingh and appellant Ratudia came inside the house and both of them dealt 14 blows on the person of Kandi with the palias which they were carrying with them, due to which she received injuries resulting in her death. The two other appellants, namely, Vestia and Raisingh were standing at the door of the house. Gopalia (PW-1) and his son Dhediya (PW-5) who had not gone to sleep saw the incident but could not cry out due to fear. 2. The main eye-witnesses to the incident are Gopalia (PW-1) and his son Dhediya (PW-5). Vakiria (PW-9) who is a child aged about 9 years is also said to be an eye-witness but the trial Court thought it proper not to rely on his testimony firstly he being a child witness and secondly he has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Gopalia (PW-1) has staled that on the date of the incident when he was sleeping along with his wife and children, at about midnight, all the appellants armed with palias came there. Appellants Vestiya and Raisingh remained standing at the door of the house, whereas appellants Bhavsingh and Ratudia came inside and these two appellants with palias in their hands assaulted Mst. Kandi due to which she received 14 incised wounds. This witness has further stated that at that time he had not gone to sleep and could distinctly see and identify all the appellants in the moon-lit night. But out of fear he could not raise any cry in the presence of the appellants and it is only after they left that he raised cries. Gopalia's son Dhediya (PW-5) who was also sleeping there has substantially corroborated in material particulars the version given by Gopalia (PW-1) and the part played by each of the appellants. There are certain minor contradictions in the testimony of these two eye-witnesses but they are insignificant. Gopalia's son Dhediya (PW-5) who was also sleeping there has substantially corroborated in material particulars the version given by Gopalia (PW-1) and the part played by each of the appellants. There are certain minor contradictions in the testimony of these two eye-witnesses but they are insignificant. Similarly there appears some confusion regarding the description of the weapon used whether it was palia or dharia, but that is not of much importance in view of the fact that the learned trial Court has not relied on the evidence regarding the recovery of those weapons. The cross-examination of these two eye-witnesses does not indicate that their evidence is unreliable or doubtful. 3. Sukalia (PW-4), who reached the place of occurrence immediately on hearing the cries from the house of Gopalia, has stated that he was told by Gopalia that it were the appellants Bhavsingh and Ratudia, who had caused palia in juries to his wife Mst. Kandi and the other two appellants Raisingh and Vestiya remained standing at the door. Similar is the statement of Ghugharia (PW-2) at whose place Gopalia (PW-1), Sukalia (PW-4) and Dhediya (PW-5) had gone in the midnight after happening of the incident and had told him the part played by each of the appellants. These two witnesses substantially corroborate the testimony of the eye-witnesses and this evidence in our opinion, has conclusively and sufficiently established that the appellants Bhavsingh and Ratudia caused the palia injuries on the person of Mst. Kandi. 4. As regards the evidence against the appellants Vestiya and Raisingh, the only evidence adduced by these two witnesses, namely, Gopalia (PW-1) and Dhediya (PW-5) is that they were standing at the door armed with palias. No overact is attributed against them nor there is any other evidence to indicate that they participated in the assault. Considering the nature of 14 injuries sustained by the deceased inside the room at about midnight, which is a normal time for sleeping, it is doubtful whether these two eye-witnesses could have actually seen and identified these appellants Vestiya and Raisingh as even according to these witnesses they were standing on the boundary side at a distance from the house. Their attention must have obviously been attracted when Mst. Their attention must have obviously been attracted when Mst. Kandi received successive blows by the persons who were actually assaulting her and it is doubtful whether in such a situation these eye-witnesses had enough time and opportunity to see these two appellants, namely Vestiya and Raisingh distinctly as even according to these eyewitnesses they were standing at some distance. It being night time, it is unlikely that they could have identified so easily. In these circumstances the evidence adduced by the prosecution against these appellants, namely Vestiya and Raisingh becomes doubtful. There appears no reason for them to stand watching at the door, armed with palias as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, in our opinion, these two appellants Vestia and Raisingh are entitled to get benefit of doubt as in our opinion, the evidence adduced against them is not clinching one. Appeals of Bhavsingh and Ratudia dismissed. Appeals of Raisingh and Vestiya allowed.