JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala, for an offence under section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, by his order dated the 24th June, 1978. 2. The facts of the case are that some horses belonging to the appellant strayed into the field of Ghansham Singh complainant, to which he took objection and asked the appellant not to allow the horses to destroy his wheat crop. Some altercation is stated to have taken place between the appellant and the complainant. It is stated that some days thereafter, on 19th, April, 1974, at about 6-30 or 7 p.m. the complainant alongwith Sudesh (DW 1) was sitting on a canal bank and they were passing their time in gossiping and listening to the transistor. During this period, sudesh (DW 1) is stated to have told the complainant that he should not entertain any grudge against the appellant on small matters. The complainant is stated to have told him that he had no grudge against the appellant. It is further stated that the appellant appeared there and he was armed with an axe. As Ghansham Singh complainant was leaning towards the transistor to adjust its tone, the appellant gave an axe blow on the right side of the head of the complaint. The appellant is also alleged to have given two mere blows on the left arm and left thigh of the complainant. After sustaining the injuries the complainant it is stated to have fallen down unconscious. Sudesh (DW 1) and the appellant are alleged to have disappeared soon thereafter and the complainant regained consciousness after 15 or 20 minutes. At ma Ram (PW 3) and Vishwa Nath are stated to have reached there and enquired of the complainant as to what had happened to him. The complainant in a low voice is stated to have told them the manner in which he was injured by the appellant. Both these persons are stated to have removed the complainant to his house. The complainant is alleged to be not in a position to speak properly or in a position to walk. The complainant was taken to Palampur hospital on the next morning but the Doctor Incharge advised that he be removed to Dharamsala Civil Hospital. Both these persons are stated to have removed the complainant to his house. The complainant is alleged to be not in a position to speak properly or in a position to walk. The complainant was taken to Palampur hospital on the next morning but the Doctor Incharge advised that he be removed to Dharamsala Civil Hospital. The complainant was removed to Dharamsala Civil Hospital where he was medically examined. The statement of the complainant was also recorded by the police in the hospital which is marked as Ex. PD and was sent to the Police Station, and on the basis of that statement formal F. I. R. (Ex. PD/1) was recorded. After completing the investigation of the case the appellant was challened. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala tried the case and the appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 9 PWs whereas the appellant examined 2 DWs in his defence. After recording the statement of the appellant under section 313, Cr. P. C. and after hearing the parties, he convicted the appellant for the offence under section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment. 4. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal to this Court. 5. Shri K. C. Rana learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the order and judgment of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained, mainly on three grounds i.e. (1) that the prosecution has not established the offence beyond a reasonable doubt as required under the law, (2) that the material eye witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution but on the contrary one eye witnesses has been produced by the appellant as DW 1, and (3) that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is based on mere conjectures and surmises. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has, however, tried to support the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 7. The offence is alleged to have been committed on the 19th April, 1974. According to the complainant, who has appeared as PW 2, he was going back to his house from the shop of Jodha when he met Sudesh on the way. They both sat on the bank of a canal and started taking to each other. 7. The offence is alleged to have been committed on the 19th April, 1974. According to the complainant, who has appeared as PW 2, he was going back to his house from the shop of Jodha when he met Sudesh on the way. They both sat on the bank of a canal and started taking to each other. It is further stated that Sudesh told him that he should not bear a grudge against the appellant on small matters, whereupon the complainant ralied that the incident was only of a trivial nature. In the mean time the appellant is stated to have reached there. He is said to be having an axe in his hand which he had concealed behind his back. The complainant further states that he bent down a little to adjust the transistor and the appellant gave a blow with an axe on the right side of the head of the complainant. The appellant is further stated to have struck the complaint with the back side of the axe on the left arm and the left thigh. The complainant further states that after receiving the injuries he fell down unconscious and gained consciousness after about 15/20 minutes. Atma Ram PW and Vishwa Nath had also come there soon thereafter and enquired of the complainant about the matter. In the cross-examination the complainant has stated that on his way to the house he had told these two persons that the appellant had given blows with an axe to him. He has further stated that he was discharged from the army in 1962. He has also admitted that a theft took place in the house of Jodha Ram and he was arrested in that case. The complainant has also admitted that he was involved in a case for abducting Smt. Prito, PW in this case, He further admitted that he was involved in a murder case in 1972 and was convicted, but was acquitted on appeal Shri Atma Ram (PW 3) is the witness, who reached the place of occurrence soon-after. He has stated that Vishwa Nath also came on the spot after him and they both supported the complainant Ghanshyam Singh by holding his arm and took him to his house. This witness further states that he enquired of the complainant as to how he sustained injuries but the complainant did not tell anything. He has stated that Vishwa Nath also came on the spot after him and they both supported the complainant Ghanshyam Singh by holding his arm and took him to his house. This witness further states that he enquired of the complainant as to how he sustained injuries but the complainant did not tell anything. On the contrary the complainant asked them to take him to his house first. In his cross-examination the witness further stated that Ghanshyam Singh complainant had called him as also Vishwa Nath to the spot. He, moreover, states that when the complainant was brought to his house, he was conscious. The complainant did not disclose the reason for his receiving the injuries though he had been asked by these persons. Vishwa Nath who came to the spot soon after Atma Ram PW has not been produced as a witness by the prosecution as also Sudesh who is stated to be an eye witness. On the contrary Sudesh has been produced by the appellant as a defence witness. Sudesh DW 1 has stated that the complainant Ghansham Singh was cutting the leaves of bamoo tree on the canal-bank. He further states that when he had walked a little distance, he heard voice of some person facing on the ground and when he looked back he found that Ghansham Singh had fallen and had also re:eived injuries. The other material eye witness in the case is PW 1 Dr. V. K. Amba, who examined the complainant and found the following injuries on his person:— ‘1. Incised wound over the scalp 2½" above the right pinna. The disamension of the injury was 1" x ¾" x ¾" bone fractured and the brain matter was visible. 2. Inability to move the left arm. 3. There was swelling of left knee and thigh. Tenderness was present on the swollen part of the knee and the thigh." 8. In his cross-examination, PW 1 did not rule out the possibility of the injury No. 1 being caused by a fall from a tree on a surface like stones. He has also stated that injury No. 3 could also be caused due to fall. He further admitted that injury No. 2 could be related to injury No. 1 and that the said injury could not have been caused by a direct hit. He has also stated that injury No. 3 could also be caused due to fall. He further admitted that injury No. 2 could be related to injury No. 1 and that the said injury could not have been caused by a direct hit. PW 4 Prito who alleges hereself to be the wife of the complainant, but says that she had been living with the complainant for the last about 3 years though she was married to one Krishan, states about the basis of the motive of the appellant to attempt the murder of the complainant. According to her, the appellant had told her that he would break the leg or arm of Ghansham Singh complainant as he was having intimacy with Kamla, who is the daughter of his maternal uncle. It is not necessary to discuss the testimony of other witnesses as the same is not relevant for the decision of this appeal since they are either formal witnesses or are the witnesses after the occurrence. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant is fully justified in urging that the prosecution did not produce the material witnesses in the case. Even Sudesh, who was the only eye witness to the occurrence did not support the prosecution story but appeared as a defence witness and has stated that the injuries caused to the complainant were due to his having a fall from a bamboo three. Atma Ram PW has also not supported the version of the complainant. At least it cannot be imagined that in case the complainant was given the blows, as alleged by him, he would have not disclosed the said fact to this witness, on the contrary, the complainant kept everything secret. Vishwa Nath, another witness was also not produced as a witness and an adverse inference can be drawn that in case he was produced he would not have supported the prosecution version. 10. PW 4 Pirito Devi has been produced to make out a motive for the appellant inflicting injuries on the complainant. It is not elaborated by her as to where and under what circumstances the appellant had disclosed that he would break the leg or arm of the complainant. She appears to be an interested witness and may have been put up as a witness for this purpose. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness. It is not elaborated by her as to where and under what circumstances the appellant had disclosed that he would break the leg or arm of the complainant. She appears to be an interested witness and may have been put up as a witness for this purpose. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of this witness. At least no such suggestion has been made to any other witness. 11. The appellant in his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C, has stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case. The reasons given by the appellant are that in the year 1970-71, the complainant had absconded after committing a murder and that he had been helping the police in arresting him. It is also admitted by the complainant that he was tried for an offence for murder and he was convicted though acquitted in appeal. A statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. is also required to be considered while judging the guilt of an accused person. I feel that the statement of the appellant is quite convincing so as to form a motive to implicate him in the case. 12. I have thoroughly gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court and have also perused the evidence. I feel that the order and judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained. No doubt, a judgment of a trial court on a finding of fact is not to be lightly brushed aside and due weight has to be given to it, all the same, after perusing the entire evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish the offence alleged, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is an established principle of law that certain factors weigh very heavily in favour of an accused person. Firstly an accused person is supposed to be innocent and the prosecution has to establish the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt and secondly the benefit of a reasonable doubt always goes to an accused. Bearing these principles of law in mind, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged against the appellant. In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to set aside the order and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated the 24th June, 1978 and to accept the appeal. Bearing these principles of law in mind, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence alleged against the appellant. In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to set aside the order and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated the 24th June, 1978 and to accept the appeal. As such the appellant is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant are also discharged, Appeal accepted. -